I think one cannot but laugh and blush to hear this poem, especially the last stanza, as you have done :) I have enjoyed it in class but you do have a different take for poetry appreciation, and I've really loved this video, so please try to continue filming videos like this.
I like to think that "vegetable love" is intended to be read as "veg-et-ab-le love". Isolating each syllable makes the couplet scan, and that forces the reader to slow down, punning on the slowness theme.
A thoughtful and thorough analysis that includes various ways to emphasize, in reading aloud, certain words, giving different meanings. People must appreciate the sound of the words to appreciate poetry. Thank you Dr. Barker, for generously devoting time and effort to this project. Next, I'll watch your Philip Larkin video. Jock Stender, Charleston, SC
I have an exam tomorrow and our teacher expects us to analyze this poem. I gain a different point of view thanks to your great video. Thank u so much it was so fun to watch.
Excellent exposition of Marvell's poem. I never realized the meaning of all that detail. So refreshing that you laid your cards on the table, as Professors around the year 1900 would never dream of being so honestly explicit, even to an all-male classroom. This lecture's theme reminded me of nurse Thelma Ritter's remark to James Stewart about getting off the fence and marrying Grace Kelly in Hitchcock's Rear Window: "When two people love each other, they come together-WHAM-like two taxis on Broadway." Then again, as we are talking more of lust rather than love, there is the guy at the bar saying "Hey, baby. How do you live your eggs in the morning?" To which the blonde knockout says "unfertilized."
Many thanks. Glad to be helpful. As a side, note, I taught Rear Window a few years ago and despite the shot, reaction shot, brilliance of it the class had a justifiable problem with believing Grace Kelly would go out of her way to try and impress James Stewart. As did I. He's just not charismatic enough to pull someone who is so clearly out of his league as she is. Clearly writers of that time were given a lot more social standing than they have today.
@@mycroftlectures When I last watched Rear Window with my husband John, he remarked that Grace Kelly shouldn't be chasing James Stewart, the guy should be doing the chasing--which I, Colleen, think is a male chauvinist remark. Grace Kelly in that film came across as strong, adventurous, gutsy, brave and daring- much more than stunning good looks, which was the point. So many guys think Kelly's role in that film is the ultimate male dream, meaning gorgeous+ chasing HIM! It's easy for an Everyman to put themselves in James Stewart's place, and for the guy to think "She's coming after ME!" Getting away from my personal views, I heard film scholar Peter Bogdanovich in commentary on To Catch a Thief DVD. He was asked to compare Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart, as they both starred in 4 Hitchcock films each. Bogdanovich said: "Jimmy Stewart is more American and less sophisticated than Cary, less good looking, and somewhat less dangerous and couldn't go quite as far in the comedy. Stewart- the intensity of the vulnerability you could go further with, so you could have scenes like Vertigo, where he becomes a love-struck man, I don't think you could have done that with Cary, or as well at all. Or the concerned father in The Man Who Knew Too Much or the kind of guy who roughs it in Rear Window. Very different, very American, more macho, more vulnerable, strangely enough, and Cary more sophisticated, somewhat more distant, more aloof, funnier." End of Bogdanovich quote. I would add this question: In the Hollywood of today, would either James Stewart or Henry Fonda even be able to get a job acting? Which says more about the idiotcy of Hollywood today. From Fonda's roles in Young Mr.Lincoln to Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath, his acting chops are impeccable. But no leading man job in Hollywood today because of his lack of great looks. And Jimmy Stewart- just look at the overwhelming intensity of furious anger mixed with crushing emotional hurt as he drags Kim Novak up the tower stairs at the end of Vertigo. This is acting on the highest scale and no one else I can think of could do it as well. So your remark of Kelly being out of his league seems to be judging Stewart on his looks.Kim Novak said of all the famous leading men she started with, her favorite was Jimmy Stewart.
The part curiously cut out above was my thinking John's remark chauvinistic. Kelly in that movie was strong, adventurous, gutsy, daring. She was much more than stunning good looks
Thanks a lot for the detailed analysis... I personally think that in the first stanza he flatters the mistress in the hope that she might succumb to his desires, but when that didn't seem to get him anywhere he begins to get desperate and becomes aggressive, and finally tries to reason it out with her by pointing out to the fact that she should enjoy the pleasures of life during her youth itself...The image conveyed through the phrase 'iron gates of life' might refer to the rules that she adheres to which keeps her away from him..The restrictions that she has laid down in her life willingly or for the society..He suggests her to break free of all these restrictions and enjoy herself ...
Yep. Makes perfect sense. I agree that "iron gates of life" could be read in that way, but can we not have a lot more fun with the phrase reading it as some have done in the comments below?
Hi Andrew came across your lectures while searching info on John Donne. Thank you so much for your lectures and time . Illuminating and so interesting. I have become a fan.
Don Ulin's reading added to my interest in re-reading a poem that we may assume we know well because it is so celebrated on account of its perfect balance of wit and imagery. At the same time I can't see how we can tell for certain that Marvell's readers would interpret it infallibly as a cautionary, parodic love-poem. If that were the case, his memorable final couplet would have been utterly counter-productive to promoting that particular end. If we can detect hermeneutic subtleties in Shakespeare and Donne, we are certainly capable of detecting them in Marvell whose English is closer to modern English than theirs. Of course one could argue that Marvell has his cake and eats it by making his meaning deliberately ambivalent. If so, what would be the point? Don, who certainly sounds very knowledgeable on Marvell, implies that there is an arcane knowledge shared by 17th C literature specialists that the rest of us don't really know about. Much of the imagery, e.g the iron gates, if decontextualised, can be interpreted either way. The difference between this alternative, reading of the poem and Swift's Modest Proposal essay is that the irony and bitterness of tone in the latter is clearly discernible by a contemporary reader too. By contrast, Marvell's supposed desire to promote chastity is a lot less obvious to the contemporary reader, and is open only to those insiders who can deconstruct his apparent wit to uncover a Puritan ascetic....in such case he's really in deep cover and assumes the enemy's style and tone impeccably. At the same time I agree that the references to mortality tend to lend a serious undertone to the light flippancy and irony of the poem's style. All in all a fascinating dialectic on a timeless (wingèd chariot or no chariot!), truly great poem, Mike
+Mike Ingham Nicely put. And it's a fascinating point Don Ulin raises there. A definite forthcoming essay question for future students too, I should think.
Dr Andrew , you are just awesome..To His Coy Mistress which I just read for reading sake during my study at the college but after hearing the explanation of the same poem from you it became one of my favourites.
thanks a lot Dr. Andrew sir. i have enjoyed ur lecture.i was little confused about this poem bt ur lecture is awesome tht everything is transparent to me now.
With Don Ulin’s argument about the poem being built on a false syllogism in mind, perhaps we can read this poem as Marvel’s acknowledgement of the fleeting nature of life and also his criticism of those people - exemplified in poems such as John Donne’s The Flea - who exploit the notion of ‘carpe diem/ seize the day’ to justify their sexual desires? For Marvel, life is brief - ‘at my back I always hear/ time’s winged chariot hurrying near’ - and so we should live life to its full potential - ‘though we cannot make our sun/ stand still, yet we will make him run’ - is a perfectly logical notion. And yet how brief is life exactly? Is it so brief that one should give up one’s virginity so easily and casually? I bet the answer for Marvel is not, as evidenced by the contrast he made between the first and the second stanza regarding the urgency of death. In the first stanza the poetic persona argues that he would ‘praise thine eyes’ and ‘adore each breast’ if they have ‘an hundred years’ or ‘ two hundreds’ even to live. But because they don’t they have to ‘sport us while we may’ without a moment of hesitancy or his mistress would die - almost immediately/ in the next stanza - and ‘then worms shall try/ that long preserved virginity/ and your quaint honour turn to dust.’ As a reader I think this note of urgency in his argument is too hyperbolic to the extent that it sounds absurd, for the persona has given his mistress a Hobson’s choice - it’s either death with ‘worms trying that virginity’ or sensuality, and since no one would opt for the former the mistress doesn’t really have a choice. And this should not necessarily be the case. The persona’s argument is logical by the looks of it, but is in fact illogical; and the persuading techniques he uses also seem farcical. I tend to believe Marvel intends to present the argument as such in order to criticise those people who attempt to take advantage of the rational, logical notion of seizing the moment to satisfy their irrational, illogical sexual desires. And his criticism could be further evidenced by the simile he used in the first stanza - ‘vegetable love’ - which has two meanings: that of the persona’s, which denotes his love for his mistress to be growing slowly but vastly; and that of Marvel’s, which connotes that the persona’s love for his mistress being lowly - as the ‘vegetable soul’ is lower than the other two divisions of the soul (i.e. ‘animal’ and rational.’) The aforementioned ideas that I've come with, indeed, are based on the assumption that the poetic persona is not the poet, namely Marvel himself. In the video you refer the poetic persona to Marvel (‘In the poem, Andrew Marvel is trying to get laid’), but I am inclined to consider the poetic persona of this poem as some man other than Marvel, as evidenced by the title of the poem, which is called ‘To HIS Coy Mistress’ rather than ‘To MY Coy Mistress’. In using the pronoun ‘His’, Marvel has distanced himself, and by extension his readers - us - from the poetic persona and his views, and in turn positions us to be more critical - even to challenge - the persona’s argument about having sex while we still can because time is our enemy - ‘yonder all before us lie deserts of vast eternity.’ And I think such argument as befitted his being a metaphysical poet, who, as you say, ‘tend to investigate the world through witty yet rational discussions of its phenomena rather than by intuition or mysticism.’
I think the moral lesson about "just do it" expressing by the poem works for me. From my point of view, the coyness represents an excuse for the mistress to refuse his flattery, as well as an excuse for people who refuses to try a new thing. At the first stanza, he creates the argument by saying if he had all the world and time, he would be doing all the preparation to get the girl. For me, he knows he will succeed since he would spend all his attention to her. However, it is not the case. Time flies like winged-chariots and the passion to his mistress may disappear. It symbolises people's desire in things they want to pursue may be washed away by time. Therefore, the last stanza, he suggests to the mistress not to pretend to be shy. They should get together when they are attractive to each other and enjoy their time. I think this symbolises that people should do whatever they desire when they are young and passionate. I think the reason i came up with the argument above is that the association between lust and desire. Lust is the in-born sexual desire of human. But after civilisation, these kinds of basic wants have to be hidden and we learn to seek other sources of happiness. But lust itself is the first desire human being is supposed to have, so the representation of lust to be every desire works for me well. Thus, the allegory "just do it" also works for me.
This poem takes the form of argument and reasoning. In the first stanza, the poet has put emphasis on the time. He assumes that our love can built on conversation and speech instead of sexual relationship, given that we all have enough time to do so. If we have enough time, we can establish a close relationship without any sexual acts. However, in the second stanza, he says ‘But’, we in fact actually do not have the time and we all are going to die. He demonstrates that the assumption above is not grounded by saying that our life is short and time is limited. The fact is that we all have not enough time to develop that kind of relationship without any sex at all. In the third stanza, he concludes his argument by claiming that we will not be young forever and therefore we have to take advantage of it while we can. On the surface, the poem seems to be a lover’s argument in favor of pursuing sexual pleasure. But if we dig deep, he actually put forward the idea of seizing the day and live it the fullest as we can. I believe that there is no escape from the life and the laws of time. Though we cannot stop the time, we still can make use of it and enjoy it while it is passing. Personally, I am in favor of the idea of seizing the day. Like many metaphysical poet, he might suggest us that we should enjoy the present and trust as little as possible to the future. If we have seized the day and live life to the fullest, we might possibly avoid the regret of not having engaging in the adventurous side of life.
This is an amazing poem. I think this poem can be divided into three parts: Perfect assumption, the cruel reality or there is a delicious irony in all this, and conclusion or what he wants to say. Why do I love this poem or what do I think this poem is amazing are because it is so true! The sight floated before my eyes! At first, he makes a perfect assumption: had we but world enough and time, it is same with if we had the enough time. If we have enough time, I could love you forever, and I could spend time to love “an age at least to every part”. You know, it could be so romantic, but also could be so strange. Maybe we could say that I love you forever, but we will not say how, because we almost know how long will our life with this body last, but he did. And second part, the first sentence, but at my back I always hear time’ s winged chariot hurrying near. This sentence is so amazing, I use amazing to describe this sentence because I could feel it, it is sound like a time bomb, in some movies, we couldn’t see the time bomb, but we could hear the sound, di di di di… and along with the sound be faster, we could feel the atmosphere become serious, this sentence also gives me this feeling. And “then worms shall try that long-preserved virginity”. This sentence is shocking me. It is not wrong, but will you write this sentence to your lover? Obviously not! But he did. And the last part, “while the youthful hue sits on thy skin like morning dew, and while thy whiling soul transpires at every pore with instant fires”. Oh my god. This poem is a letter to a “Coy Mistress”, but it is so exposed. Again， will you do this? Not, but he did. So I think this poem is so amazing.
You mentioned the importance of changing stresses within the poem. If its applied to the title “To His Coy Mistress”makes me wonder who are the target readers of this poem and the significance of the persona. I had great doubt about who the "he" in the poem is. I understand it is most common to study the poem with carpe diem as a focus, but what concerns me is that Marvel is justifying his illogical reasoning with Time and he made it explicit, like saying we should not rush into things only for the sake of time. Mistress a only an imaginative character, as you believe this poem actually talks about opportunities. I agree that the poem can be talking about different things, I think Marvell is talking about his writing ideas, as good ideas will be silenced if you don't put them forward and they will be forgotten in time. In the later part of his poem the ball imagery reminds me of a knowledge sphere and that the poem concludes with the hope of his idea or message runs.
this whole poem is so flirtatious...like on another hand yes he is complimenting her youth and beauty, but there's also a certain undertone conveyed in his lines that she would fall in love eventually, the only thing matter is how long it will take; which is why he wrote "and the last age should show your heart", so he's simply saying "since you gonna fall in love with me anyway, why not speed things up and use the youth and beauty with me while you still have it." And how cocky he sounded when he talked about her virginity, as if he is the only one who would be interested in love with her, by implying that "if you don't have sex with me, no one gonna be and you will just die a virgin." Pretty sure if this tone is used nowadays with his "you know you want me" it will be despised by women
In revisiting your terrific lecture I noticed a post saying you got this poem "inside out" and that it was a warning to young girls against allowing a seduction- a view I totally disagree with. This posting also mentioned Marvell serving as tutor to the daughter of a man of high position and would not risk being known as the author of poems of seduction. I believe it important to keep in mind that during the poet's lifetime, i.e. Shakespeare, his "sugared sonnets" were " circulated privately among his friends." Plus, talking of risque poetry as a threat to one's job- consider John Donne's life at St.Paul's not just in lieu of a poem of seduction like The Flea. What about Donne's youthful poem The Apparition beginning "When by thy scorn, I murderess I am dead" that goes on to describe possible homicidal assault when she is in bed with her sleeping lover? How would this have affected the future Dean of St. Paul's? And don't say these poems were unknown. The England of 500 years ago wasn't as wishy-washy and hypersensitive as the world we live in now.
I've set the question of how satirical we think Donne is being in this poem, to students a few times now and get some very interesting results. Is this a persona poem or not? In a rather serendipitous moment I was look for a biography of Donne in order to answer this question for myself once and for all. One imparting the information you have just disclosed. I can't help feeling that if Donne is attempting to mock a certain type of seduction poetry, as Shakespeare certainly does in My Mistress Eyes are Nothing Like the Sun, then in the final stanza Donne writes the most convincing seduction poem ever put on paper in his attempt to mock the genre. But satire is a weird thing. I have trouble enough knowing whether someone is mocking something they find stupid, or just being stupid in have the posts I read on the modern world. There's an extended sonnet of mine called American Lies where I contemplate this. How to judge the satirical values of four-hunded years ago is very difficult for us. Ben Johnson's On My First Son, reads like a satire on the hyper-religious to me, and I'm pretty sure he's being serious. I'm pretty sure Donne is being serious, in the final stanza for sure, but wouldn't bet my life on it. Though I would bet my life on the 'truth' of his final argument.
@@mycroftlectures First two quotes 1) In the end truth will out - Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice 2) There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so- Shakespeare, Hamlet I read just read your American Sonnet and think it is outstanding. But I think you go off the beaten track when ascribing hypersensitivity to a desire by some to Protect. Although further on the line "Look at me" hits close to the truth. The idea of some kind of Puritan mind-set behind The day satire died- isn't Puritan. I am reminded of HL Menckin defining Puritan belief as worrying that somewhere out there someone may be having fun. This desire to 'clean up' or revise society is as least as old as attempting to banish The Road Runner cartoons because it's violent content could tramitize little ones. Pu-leese! This has nothing to do with any Faith and is much closer to a naked power play. I can just think up a possible example: "On Fame" by John Keats describing her ( fame) as a coy manipulative girl- Wait a minute! Can't have that. It's mysoginistic. I can imagine another one. In Cheers, cynical Italian waitress Carla is invited to an opera visit to make up to Diane for a perceived insult to her. Carla says "Count me out. Everyone I go to family reunions, they are always trying to get me interested in Opera. A bunch of fat, homely people screeching and trying to stab each other" to which Frasier replies "Not all opera is like that, Carla" which leads to Carla's "What opera?I was talking about the family reunions." Wait! Can't have that. It's anti- Italian ( and I speak as one with an Italian husband and enormous opera fan) Once upon a time ( in a galaxy far, far, away) a University classroom was a protected space where everything was permissable in order to get nearer to truth and understanding in pursuit of the discipline of Philosophy. Now you can forget that- it's called Hate Speech and can get a teacher fired. Those behind cultural sanitizing are not doing this from a misguided understanding of Faith. It is a power play, mind control and an attempt to "improve" human nature. Hence the 20th Century, the bloodiest one Ever. It's wars were not fought for wealth, land or power. It was an attempt to change how people think: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.
@@colleencupido5125 Love that MencKen quote. And Cheers. On the cultural cancelling topic, there's no denying that it's a worry, but I wonder how problematic it really is. There are certainly occasions where the gutlessness of a University Administration in not backing freedom of debate on an issue is a very bad omen. I'm assuming that the very issue of cancelling and free speech on campus will be one of the major issues discussed in universities and that that discussion will stop the "cancelling" of discussion on other topics. Unless those who think that cancelling discussion is a good idea, manage to cancelling the discussion on cancelling. It's always possible, though I think it unlikely, that the discussion on cancelling, will conclude that cancelling discussion is a good thing, but once all the issues are heard, I doubt it. Maybe I've too much faith in the value of a serious debate and discussion, but I really hope I'm right on this one. Though I would be prepared to be dissuaded from my view by a sufficiently powerful counter argument.
I've really enjoyedyour lectures on Seamus Heaney, and so I was curious to hear his lecture on another of my favorites. But I'd like to suggest that you (and a lot of other readers) may have gotten Andrew Marvell's poem inside-out. Some of the comments already posted have alluded to some of what I would call "irritants" that make a reading of this poem as a simple carpe diem poem difficult to sustain. To take one of those, the "iron gates": though the speaker presents them as opening into life (maybe eternal life), iron gates are more likely to be associated with death or even Hell. The gates of life should be made of something more exalted than iron, which I think Marvell intends as one of the final warnings in the poem against the speaker's seduction. As the smooth sophistication of the first part gives way to the violent imagery of the later parts, we go from mineral love to vegetable love to animal love, but we don't ever get even to human love, let alone anything higher than that. Marvell's audience would have recognized that we had made it less than half way up the great chain of being before descending into violence like birds of prey. There is also the false syllogism on which the entire poem is built, which would have been obvious and maybe even funny to his reader: P1. "If we had world enough and time, this coyness, lady were no crime" P2, We don't have world enough. C. Therefore, this coyness is a crime. Logically, that is the slightly more complex equivalent of saying P1. If an animal is a dog then it is not a cat. P2. It is not a dog. C. Therefore it is a cat. I don't remember the technical term -- something like "negating the premise," but you can see that it is a blatant logical fallacy: nothing that would have been lost on Marvell's readers. So, I''m afraid that to read it the way you do is to be taken in by the parody, as if we were to take seriously Swift's proposal for eating babies. You and I, I'm sure, find Marvel's proposition much more appealing than Swift's, but I don' think he intended it that way at all. Marvell was more of a Puritan than a Cavalier. When the poem was written, he was serving as a tutor to the daughter (or some dependent) of the Parliamentary General Thomas Fairfax: not a position in which he would have wanted to be found out writing seduction poems for young women! More likely, I think it was a poem intended for her as a warning against the dangers of such seduction, shown to be dangerous, illogical, and without any real possibility for movement beyond the animal love. Though it's been too long since I read him to quote chapter and verse, a lot of my understanding of this poem is indebted to a wonderful college professor of mine from UMass by the name of Charles Kay Smith. I have so enjoyed your other lectures that if you find these ideas at all helpful in rethinking this wonderful poem, I will be glad to have repaid some of that enjoyment.
+Don Ulin Hi Don.Thanks for the praise on the Heaney lectures and for posting this. It is genuinely fascinating for me to read as this is the type of discussion I really enjoy. I think there’s three points here and the last, on the poem being a parody is intriguing and I’ll try and argue as strongly as I can why I think this is not the case. And this is all the more interesting as I am totally willing to accept your view of what is going on here as well. Point 1. The first point is to do with the “iron gates of life.” Gates go both ways. I’ve always assumed these were the gates into life, rather than the gates out of life. I assume he is saying that the place they are in is lifeless, but once they get their “mojo” on they’ll be frolicking in the fields of the full and fulfilled existence. Something like that. Of course, the argument against that is Marvell says the gates OF life not the gates TO life, so we can’t be sure . . . (The copy of Touched with Fire I have at hand to check this on reads “Thorough the iron grates of life” incidentally.) Anyway . . . Point 2. The false syllogism on which the entire poem is built, P1. "If we had world enough and time, this coyness, lady were no crime" P2, We don't have world enough. C. Therefore, this coyness is a crime,” is pointed out in the lecture, isn’t it? Point 3. Now this is the really contentious/interesting point and reads like an essay question in itself. “To what extent can Andrew Marvell’s ‘To His Coy Mistress’ be read as a warning against the type of seduction techniques demonstrated in the poem, and ventriloquized by Marvell through a persona?” I hope I’ve got that right, because it’s a great question on, among other things, author’s intentions and our understanding of satire. (I find misunderstandings of satire fascinating, particularly when we live in a world where some things are unsatirizable- if such a word exists, and so many statement that are plainly satire get misunderstood). If I paraphrase your view on the poem, Marvell is writing a warning to women, in the form of a parody, on the type of seduction techniques written by poets of his time, rather in the same way the first twelve lines Shakespeare’s My Mistress Eyes are Nothing like the Sun, are a parody of the type of easy simile employed by rival poets during his time. I hope I’ve got that right. (And yes, if this is true I too find Marvell’s suggestion more palatable than Swift’s. Palatable, get it?) Without writing a full essay on the subject I can certainly see how “Thy beauty shall no more be found; Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound My echoing song; then worms shall try That long-preserved virginity, And your quaint honour turn to dust, And into ashes all my lust; The grave’s a fine and private place, But none, I think, do there embrace,” could be read in that way, deliberately presented as too aggressively vulgar perhaps to be serious, and the poem’s opening “gambit”, and the historical evidence you site certainly give credence to the view, and I don’t have evidence to hand to refute it. Which doesn’t mean I agree with it. My contention would be that if To His Coy Mistress was written as a parody of a certain type of poem, and certain types of arguments, I would say it was an epic backfire. Some parts of it are simply too good and too powerful to be taken that way. I’m thinking especially of the immortal lines: “But at my back I always hear Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near; And yonder all before us lie Deserts of vast eternity.” And: "Rather at once our time devour Than languish in his slow-chapped power. Let us roll all our strength and all Our sweetness up into one ball, And tear our pleasures with rough strife Through the iron gates of life: Thus, though we cannot make our sun Stand still, yet we will make him run.” I assume the argument against this view would be that although we find these lines powerful and persuasive now, at least I do, that does not mean they would have been taken that way when they were written. And while it is interesting to speculate on that, and it is interesting, I’m always more interested in the words on the page and how we respond to them. For me, an argument could be made for reading the poem in the way you suggest, “we go from mineral love to vegetable love to animal love, but we don't ever get even to human love, let alone anything higher than that . . . we had made it less than half way up the great chain of being before descending into violence like birds of prey,” is a very worthwhile observation which I would counter with, Love is not really what he’s after here. The problem is that the poem is better and more enjoyable when read without irony as a call to . . . I dunno, “seize the living moment when in arises cos we’ll all be dead soon anyway.” (At least for me). It would be doubly ironic of course if Marvell had actually intended the poem to say, "Watch out for poets who try to seduce you by saying "seize the living moment when in arises cos we’ll all be dead soon anyway,” as some of the lines in the poem have become the world’s most famous exaltations of exactly that type of thought. I have been imagining Marvell as the American spy in Nazi Germany working as propaganda agent for Hitler in Kurt Vonnegut's "Mother Night". After the war ends he is talking to a Nazi about whether they knew he was a spy and is told "We always suspected you might be but the propaganda you were doing for us was so effective that we thought that even if you were you couldn't be doing a better job for our cause, so let you get on with it." Thanks again for these comments they have given me something new to mull over. I’d be curious to know what others thought on this.
@@mycroftlectures1) I don't agree with Ulin that P1 is a false syllogism: "If we had world enough and time, this coyness, lady were no crime" is simply stating that 'coyness' has no value in this world, namely because it is not an unlimited world with unlimited time. Time presses on and waits for no man, or woman. 2) For what it is worth, there is only one 'iron gate' in the bible and after the first and second guard, when Peter is freed from his chains in Herod's prison by the Angel of the Lord, he then passes 'the iron gate' back to the city. If this is what Marvel is alluding to, then the act of enjoyment of the lovers would set them free from the prison into full life and meaning. "Rather at once our time devour // Than languish in his slow-chapped power. // Let us roll all our strength and all // Our sweetness up into one ball, //And tear our pleasures with rough strife" . "Yet we will make him run" is advocating the speeding of time through life's journey by savouring the enjoyments life offers. 3) "Rather than, descending into violence like birds of prey,”If anything, life will appear short, not long and tedious. So, I must agree with Dr Barker that this brilliant poem were indeed ill-conceived if it were intended as a remedy to the spontaneity and carpe diem. It is time that the 'amorous birds devour'
@@mycroftlectures1) I don't agree with Ulin that P1 is a false syllogism: "If we had world enough and time, this coyness, lady were no crime" is simply stating that 'coyness' has no value in this world, namely because it is not an unlimited world with unlimited time. Time presses on and waits for no man, or woman. 2) For what it is worth, there is only one 'iron gate' in the bible and it is the one Peter passes, after the first and second guard, when he is freed from his chains in Herod's prison by the Angel of the Lord, and returns to the city. If this is what Marvel is alluding to, then the act of enjoyment of the lovers would set them free from the prison into full life and meaning. 3) "Rather than, descending into violence like birds of prey,” if anything, life will appear shorter but happier, not long and tedious. "Rather at once our time devour // Than languish in his slow-chapped power. // Let us roll all our strength and all // Our sweetness up into one ball, //And tear our pleasures with rough strife". It is time that the 'amorous birds devour', not each other. "Yet we will make him run" is advocating the speeding of time through life's journey by savouring the enjoyments life offers. Time will not pass in a heavy and leaden way, but is speeded up by the joy experienced. 4) So, I must agree with Dr Barker that this brilliant poem were indeed ill-conceived if it were intended as a remedy to the possibility of life lived with spontaneity and carpe diem.
I like the broader interpretation that this is not just a poem about sex. I think the "ball" near the end is a reference to the entangled bodies of a couple engaging all their "strength" and "sweetness" in the act of lovemaking, and the "iron gates of life" refer to the birth canal and her vagina which is currently locked for him.
Hawks and eagles mating, is considered one of the most glorified or graceful ways of having sex. It is, in fact, termed as the 'leap of faith', where they lock talons, and while falling from a great height, mate, the entire way of their descent, as if trusting in each other and only unclock talons almost towards the end of their fall to spread their wings and fly parting from each other, to go their separate ways. (sounds kind of like the one night stand thing Marvel is trying to establish here with his mistress... lol). In fact, in mythology it is believed to be the way dragons would have mated, which is even more daring, graceful and magnetic... dragons would mate in a combining way of eagles and snakes... locking claws and intertwing tails and perhaps whole bodies even (deppending on the species' body shape). It's like they're literally falling for each other... An almost 'You jump, I jump' kind of behaviour. This idea of entangling bolies makes sense of the lines : "Let us roll all our strength and all /Our sweetness up into one ball,..." Regarding what you spoke of 'time's chariot'.... It gives a sense of time catching up to them, so it's quick on their heals and, therefore, the sense of urgency about engaing in amourous activity before time runs out and their youth is no more. It's also a reference to the idea of Apollo and Artemis' charriots.... They close night and day and vice versa, therby determining time and season. The end or close of a day in Literature is often compared to the full extent of an individual's life coming to a close, starting in the morning and then ending by night. So it would particularly mean Artemis' chariot which brings the night closer, thus ending the day. The idea of the "sun" standing still is mentioned in the last couplet, which is both a mythological (Apollo) and Biblical (Joshua) reference. Plus personifying time as a "he" makes sense here. you also mentioned how Marvel wishes to put time behind them, which is ironic since in the earlier sense of time being quick on their heals behind them, sounds like running out of time, but towards then end sounds like leaving the idea of time behind, like an escape. The dew is a metaphor for temporariness.... So just as a dew drop does not last long, it's freshness and cooless dries up and thus withers away as the day intensifies and ends, so also her beauty, being compared to a dew drop would wither away. Once agiain the idea of morning is used here, therby confirming what I said about the chariot of Artemis, so morning is the begining of the day, the part also usually associated with innocence, hence connecting it to the idea of virginity. Also, "not to be crass to sound cool here" (love that line of yours btw), I personally feel that since this poem is purely about getting laid in the purest sense, it would seem that the line: "Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound / My echoing song;..." seems to sigify that her vagina is the marble vaul where his "song" or 'passion' will not get the chance to "sound" or 'take effect' when she is dead. The word "echoing" gives off a sense of 'repetition', the kind one would engage in, in sexual activity. This makes sense to me since the next line says that if he doesn't get to have her in this life then the worms will, in death, as you explained. [These are just my opinions of the text. Do let me know what you think about it.]
Nice analysis, and thank you for the comment. I particularly like the temporariness of the dew that you mentioned, that works very well. All the mythological references are sound, as are the Biblical and Titanic ones. I didn’t know that about the mating hawks and eagles. I often wonder with metaphors like this, Did the poet know that? What did the poet know of mating hawks in order to be able to use it as a metaphor. Thinking aloud here, he probably knew more than we do today. Hawking is hardly a modern day pastime, and unless we have chanced upon a nature programme it is not a reference we would know the full meaning of but Marvell could well have been more familiar than we are today. In reference to this video, I think the weakness of it is that I avoid mentioning the constant sexual innuendo in it. At the time I thought this innuendo Monty Pythonesque and didn’t bother but the omission is a weakness on the part of the lecture because it prevents us questioning how far Marvell is being serious about what he says, and the question of how far this poem is a satire on a type of aggressive love poetry rather than an example of it.
@@mycroftlectures True, it probably isn't something Marvel mave have known of (in refernce to the eagle mating) but I do believe he may have had some idea since he was living in time past the age of scientific discovery, and the metaphysical poets were often cinsidered know-it-alls. Also, regarding the other stuff, I'm glad you liked my points of view. I just love literature.
Dr. Barker, your lectures and notes have been really helpful and are a massive contribution to my scores. It would be really helpful if you could post an analysis of sonnet 146 by William Shakespeare.
I can see how impatient Andrew Marvell was as he wrote what he would do if he had enough time and world. But in fact he did not have such amount of time to do all those things. And he turned to write in a very aggressive tone in the second stanza. The contrast that Andrew Marvell created between the first and second stanza intensified the great desire of how desperate he wanted to have sex with the mistress. The way the poet seduced a girl gives me a feeling that he had some kind of psychological problems or else I cannot imagine someone talking to a girl like this.
Wow, thanks, thanks..... Enjoyed your analysis immensely . There's also a fun response to this poem by Annie Finch. One day you may want to analyze it also. For the fun and pleasure of your ardent fans like me.
+pengjien chen Thanks. There is a comment below by Don Ulin that raises a fascinating point on this poem and is well worth checking out. There are a few replies by myself and Mike Ingham, that counter the point he makes and I think they are convincing, (obviously), but what he says is certainly worth reading for the argument he presents.
mycroftlectures ...sir will you plz. make a video on the poem " Break of day in the trenches" as per the ugc pattern of exam,that I' m preparing for and many more...Bt plz make 1 video,I desperately need help for my exams of coming year of B.A part-3 exam,as in my previous exams of part-1& 2, I HV gained very poor marks in eng. honours- 1st I got 49.5% ND next year 55%...this time I really want to gain up to 70%+ marks...so plz help me a little sir!
The question of audience is important here, as is the audience for whom Shakespeare is writing. Patron? Dark lady? Boyfriend? It's more than that. And the same is true for Marvell. The immediate assumption one would make is that this poem is addressed to a woman as part of a seduction. But that becomes increasingly less likely as the poem becomes more macabre. Is Marvell just being a guy who has no idea how to seduce a woman and doesn't realise that by the end of the poem few women would be in the mood to leap into his bed? I don't think so - the poem is a tour de force, a wonderful demonstration of wit and ingenuity, and that, I think, is the key. For whom would such a pyrotechnic poem be intended? I think it's the boys - Marvell's fellow-writers. The poem manipulates and undermines the conventions of seduction, and employs the tools of philosophy and rhetoric to build a soaring conceit that is both absurd and convincing in its sleight of hand and magician's control. He doesn't use the poem for seduction or warning in any conventional sense. It's entirely about virtuoso performance - a monument to his poetic genius, not a means to an ordinary moral or amorous end. The response is not, 'Yeah, baby, take me now!' and neither is it, 'Hmmm. I''d better be circumspect with persuasive poets and take to heart these reflections on the frailty of the flesh.' It's 'What a master-craftsman! What a wordsmith! What an artist! How do I top that?!' Martin
I was just flicking through these comments and I don't think I'd observed before what a truly perceptive and well-written comment this is, especially the second paragraph. With a bit of historical biography thrown into the mix we find that Marvell's situation makes it unlikely that the poem is really written to seduce a young lady, and yet I'm not fully convinced that the poem is a satire on poems written in the style of the seductive poem. What you say about the poem being written "for the lads" makes good sense. The poem is written for other poets, as a semi-comic, semi-serious, demonstration of Marvell's own poetic capabilities. And it is all the more fun for being so too.
"Iron gates of life" particular part of the female anatomy the author is after. "Am'rous-birds of prey" birds that in the act of sex fly high in to the sky and free fall down to earth in the act and separate before they hit the ground. Andrew Marvell is attempting to not only remove her inhibitions but to also to have her be a force intent to his wills. This poem is greater than the analysis.
On the surface, Andrew Marvell is asking the lady to have sex with him, however, more than a love poem, I would say, “To His Coy Mistress” is a meditation on time and death. Marvell dramatizes the questions: What are the implications of physicality and mortality? In using time most wisely, should one focus on this life or the afterlife? Marvell avoids a simple, conventional answer, and the poem works well as an argument for either view.
Alex Blackwell, if you asked your question with a particular expectation of a significance in your mind about the rubies and if that is the same as what you have now put in my mind, thank you and it is a bit comical.
The last lines can mean that we can't make sun stop as we like but we can make the sun run as we like, i.e. spend the time as we like but not try to stop the time
As a girl, my impression to this poem is that this man isn't deeply in love with this woman, because I don't think if you love a woman wholeheartedly, you would write something like the second stanza as to seduce her, because it would be total failure for her to enjoy the pleasure obtained from sex. I think the whole poem is to suggest that sex is something that couldn't be waited. I like the speed of this poem which turns from slow to fast and finally slowing down again. It makes me feel like he is doing a sarcasm in the first stanza because he doesn't agree to most poets on the idea that 'love is ever glow' or 'I love every edge of you no matter how time flies'. He is showing his urgency of having sex with his girl. He wants it violently and desperately like wanting to eat her alive immediately. So the speed here goes quick. Another interpretation to the speed of this poem is that, I think the writer is hinting the process of having sex. At first, we have to slowly seduce and flatter your partner as to create the atmosphere. Then everything will get more hyper and active and at last when it's done, they will be lying down resting together on bed. The speed of it is also going from slow to fast to slow.
If Andrew Marvell really writes this poem only for flirting a girl to have sex with him, then it is properly the most cheesy romantic poetry I've ever heard and I don't even know how to appreciate this poetry. However, I know how the carpe diem poetry goes on and this poetry is really a typical example of it. I'm not sure whether Marvell intended to write it like a satire because as I remember that metaphysical poets always love to make fun of some serious stuff in their period of time. If it's meant to surprise or shock people, I think Marvell did it in a humorous way to express his understanding of love and time. It's just like what we always say in our generation:YOLO(You Only Live Once). It's not hard to understand right now but in 500 years ago? I think it's a bold idea. It's so funny. P.S. I don't know why I cannot post public comment on this vid only so i just post it here for reference lol.
If the speaker is to seduce a girl through this poem, the sarcasm really goes too far beyond to impress a girl and to make her sleep with him. This is obviously not a poem about the speaker and his affection to certain woman. I think I will agree it is a satire to people who write seducing poems just by reading the first two stanzas. The image of “worms crawling in and out of vagina” is surely sarcastic enough to sneer at those who write such kind of poem. But it also fits with the interpretation that people should live in the moment and have fun. Also, in the last stanza, especially the final couplets, sounds very positive to me and hard to read it as sarcasm to the style of love poems at that time.
I pictured William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet when I was reading this poem. I pictured Andrew Marvell and his mistress as in the balcony scene, where Marvell (Romeo) was reciting this poem to his mistress (Juliet). But the only difference between the two would be one was about love and the other one would be about wanting to have sex, which was comical in a way. The three stanza of the poem could be divided into three cconcepts. The first stanza would be a love poem from Marvell to his mistress. The second stanza would be Marvell's statement listing out the problems of not having sex with her right now. And the final stanza being the idea of having sex/cape diem. The three concepts somehow fit together that proved his arguements and desire to have sex, which I find that it was logical and funny at the same time. But what is funny is that the first stanza of the poem was something Shakespeare was trying to tell his fellow poets not to do like using false similes and unreal ideas in "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun". And by taking the sex part out of the poem's context in the second and the third stanza, I like the idea of time passing quickly than we could imagine, and the idea of seizing the day and live life to the fullest. I like the first 4 lines in the second stanza which showed the feelings of time passing and the emptiness of future that we could not escape. I also like the idea of hope and optimism in the third stanza - time eats us and we have to eat them back, and the sun is chasing us but we can make it harder for time to catch us that quickly. I don't believe Don Ulin's idea that this poem was a parody that he was writing to her and warning her against the dangers of such seduction. It is because there are no lines in the poem to suggest that idea. If we are to belive that view, why do Marvell ask both of them to enjoy sex while they still can? I also want to know more about the stressing of different lines in the poems that could give different meanings. How do you write about their difference? Do you simply just write their stresses or what?
If I understand Don Ulin's facinating point correctly, then the whole poem would have to be seen as a satire on the type of poets who would write this type of poem to seduce their lovers, much in the same way Nothing Like the Sun or Sonnet 130, is seen as a satire on bad poets who write the "My mistress eyes ARE like the sun/ Her lips ARE red as coral" etc . . . type of poem. As to your second question about "the stressing of different lines in the poems that could give different meanings" unless you wanted to show specifically how many different meanings can be attainted by stressing different words (not lines) a few examples should be enough to make your point.
You'd have to hope she was well-read. I mean, that would look REALLY weird if she didn't know the poem, as opposed to indulging in a brilliantly witty reinterpretation of a classical romantic trope that showed you and she were on the same intellectual and cultural level, if she did know it. And knew it very well. And interpreted it the same way you did. Of course, then you might be out of luck when you find out she didn't know what an eggplant looked like. Ah, the perils of courting rituals!
If Andrew Marvell really writes this poem only for flirting a girl to have sex with him, then it is properly the most inappropriate romantic poetry I've ever heard and I don't even know how to appreciate this poetry. However, I know how the carpe diem poetry goes on and this poetry is really a typical example of it. I'm not sure whether Marvell intended to write it like a satire because as I remember that metaphysical poets always love to make fun of some serious stuff in their period of time. If it's meant to surprise or shock people, I think Marvell did it in a humorous way to express his understanding of love and time. It's just like what we always say in our generation:YOLO(You Only Live Once). It's not hard to understand right now but in 500 years ago? I think it's a bold idea. It's so funny.
Micah Cheng As a girl, I think the flirtation is effective enough to get one in bed. But I agree with you that Marvell is probably the man to sleep with but not to be in love with. YOLO.
Mistress? BDSM? really? Mistress is a term to mean an unmarried woman. I would say the poem is one between equals, a man who is clever enough to offer the poem (or plea) and a woman who has already avoided seduction over a courtship, and who can read its multiple meanings in the poem. He is persuading her, and hinting as the sexual physical pleasures as way to further tempt her. Thus we can read her as intelligent and string willed, but also a sexual woman (quite progressive idea of women for 17th C). I see it as the Mistress is not a silly girl (weird idea) but a young lady (LONG preserved virginity - long courtship at the least) from a good family who understands premarital sex is forbidden, but equally is open to be persuaded. Marvel actually uses romantic ideas of the physical love making, being no longer possible after death. Vegetable love is clearly phallic ... the poem is a string of double entendre, its about sex.... a wooer thinly veils sexual references as he is tempting her into bed. Its a tongue in cheek poem, that disguises the obvious message (let us lay together) in a language which appears to be polite but conveys sexual temptation.
Why does Dr. Barker keep choosing poems which were so important in my youth? Wait, did he just say Marvell was trying to get laid? There go my ideals...
Chong Hoi Kwo 4084248 Time is a substantial theme in the poem as to everyone, the poet is no exception. The poet has a crave for a lady who he wants to spend his life with and his thirst for the woman has only been growing as he realises there is not much time to waste, as shown by the contrasting ownership of time in the first and second stanzas, with the former being the ideal imagination of the poet and the lady having “world enough and time” (line 1) while the latter being the “impartial cruelty of time passing” - “But at my back I always hear / Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near” (lines 1-2). The poet’s conscience of the transience of life is yet not only to the poet, but also to the mistress as in stanza 2, the mistress can only hear the “echoing song” (line 27) that the poet sings to her in her grave “thy marble vault” (line 26). Like life, beauty does not last forever, “Thy beauty shall no more be found”. We therefore see that the poet wishes the mistress will also realise life, as well as time, is fleeting and will therefore conquer her coyness and love him back. The poem then continues with the poet envisaging the two of them making the most out of the reality in the third stanza. Rather than being “chapped” (line 40) by time, they should “devour” (line 39) time, by “roll[ing]” (line 41) through the “iron gates of life” (line 44) - metaphorical obstructions that hold people back which in this case may refer to the shyness of the lady - with energy and sweetness, so that they can pursue the ‘ultimate pleasure’ or live fully in life without regret. The final two lines in the poem are a powerful and precise conclusion of why they should break through the “iron gates” and what the poet means by living fully in life: despite the ageing in future, their inner youth is always buoyant and flamboyant. If the poem is a proposal poem to a girl, we can see that time is what urges, if not initiates, the poet to seal the deal with someone he loves. There is this hackneyed old saying, one only realises the importance of someone when they are gone. Likewise, knowing that he is competing with time which is yet invincible, the poet takes no hesitation and venture to court, which denotes the crux of the poem, one should be honest about their inner voice and bravely venture it, despite the craziness and absurdity. The bold pursuit or the ‘just do it’ spirit is the spirit of life. There is no guarantee when you try, but it is a definite no if you never try. Without adventure, life is just boring, and one may give up the unexpected yet seasoning possibilities of life. Accelerated by the fact that life is short, one should seize the day and act out, like the band The Damned which roared at the old age and redefined ‘youthfulness’ and reached the peak of their life. The proactiveness towards life, as opposed to going gentle into that good night, is demonstrated by the poet’s courtship to the lady. With this being the overall message, this poem may well become another ‘truthful old saying’. It is not a love poem specifically for “his coy mistress” because it can be universal, as in the case of The Damned for example, whose “iron age” may be ageing or being old-fashioned. The mentioning of the lady is to connote the sense of time - his appreciation of the physical beauty of the lady is based on time, “An hundred years” (line 13) for the eyes, “Two hundred years” (line 15) for the breast, “thirty thousand to the rest” (line 16), and at least “an age to every part” (line 17); the beauty of the lady is limited by time (line 25), as well as her virginity. Hence, if one argues it is a love poem, they should pay as much attention to ‘time’ as well. It may be true that the poet does fancy the lady, but can it also be possible that his urgency and desire for the lady is due to the ephemerality of time (and life)? With the universal and shared experience, this poem resonates with readers and remains a lasting ‘truthful old story’.
Lam Wai Sum, Phronesis (4074243) “It is the way the over-all message of the poem can resonate in our own lives that gives To His Coy Mistress its lasting power, not the direct address to the girl in it. What is that overall message?” Combining the elements of love, passion, sex and time, it was not something new in poems even back in the 16th and 17th centuries, but rather something classical to see in genres. Before Andrew Marvell’s To His Coy Mistress, Robert Herrick has once addressed a similar idea of carpe diem in To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time, ‘Gather ye rosebuds while ye may/ Old Time is still a-flying’ in attempt to urge people to seize their days to love. To His Coy Mistress very much shared the same message. In my first read-through of the poem, without any knowledge to the historical background of the poet and the poem, I tend to believe that it is just typical love poem suggesting people to make the best of life by living it to the full and not to wait until death. However, what made it differentiate from the others would be how Marvell actually used the seduction of the girl as a metaphor to satire the fleeting of time on earth with the adoption of a three-part argument, and the complexion of the paradox between his own belief and the message that he wanted to convey. The idea of wooing, of seducing the ‘mistress’ is not obscure, instead, I would say it is blatant by the use of ‘If, but, therefore’ structure in the three parts. As pointed out in the lecture, it is a convincing way to sway someone, and for this poem, Marvell first provided an ‘If’ condition of consummate love, which he referred as his ‘vegetable love’ to the mistress-IF, if they had enough time. He used some sort of hyperbole in the first part, for instances ‘ten years before the Flood’, ‘the conversion of the Jews’ or the many years the poet tends to use to appreciate mistress’s body, yet this is crucial for the readers to acknowledge that these depictions were not realistic and impossible to be true, therefore an IF was used. Time was then strongly addressed as the enemy of the lovers in the second part to demonstrate the ‘impossibility’-BUT. As ‘time’s winged chariot’ was chasing behind them and when it comes, the lust of the poet would turn into ashes that he would no longer show affiliation to her while worms would be the ones that devour her ‘long-preserved virginity’. These horrifying and kind of threatening statement were to overturn the IF condition he provided before and were also the ‘reality’ the poet perceived. With all the long-winded logical thinking in advance, Marvell consequently yearns directly for the need of the mistress to not be coy anymore and sleep with him. He managed to say that ‘Look, now while we still are youthful with instant desires inside, why don’t we just grasp any seconds to do it immediately here, to do it as vigorously as you really wanted and union as “one ball”? There’s no time much left in our lives, seize the day to be in love with me and follow your heart!’. The light-hearted mood and considered-to-be a certain level of rudeness towards the woman with the combination of death imagery support the notion that it was not just traditional love poetry. Interestingly, it is crucial to be mention that there is a paradox between the overall message that Marvell wanted to convey through the poem and his own belief. Given that he was born as Puritan, which they had a strict thought on sexual behaviour that having sex should be restricted within marriage, all non-martial or non-reproductive sexual activities were forbidden-which was criticized as the denial of pleasure, apparently, Marvell was persuading readers to seize the day and to engage in love or sex. It was a contradiction to his social and religious situation in real life and if this poem were to barely play as a seduction to the mistress, it would be a tragedy for Andrew Marvell’s rest of the life as living in a conservative society. Therefore, I very much agree what the lecture had mentioned, it might not necessarily be as flippant as it sounds like, Marvell was just trying to allude to love and sex fond by the audience to bring out the notion of carpe diem in an arguable way.
It is the way the over-all message of the poem can resonate in our own lives that gives To His Coy Mistress its lasting power, not the direct address to the girl in it. What is that overall message? From first glance, this is a love poem, much like John Donne’s “Good Morrow” or Shakepeare’s love sonnets. As the video has explained, this is dedicated to the poet’s coy lover. He named her his mistress, perhaps both as a lover and also as someone who had sexual dominance over him (As the poem later points out, she literally decides if he can have her body.) The poem then lists the poet’s argument for having sex with him in three stanzas. The first stanza is very similar to other love poems, whereby the poet wildly exaggerates his love for the girl. His love lasts as long as time itself and as strong as the greatest empires, he also mentioned how her beauty deserves the praising of infinite lifetimes etc. It is possible that the poet here is adopting a similar stance towards the genre of “love poems” as Shakespeare did in Sonnet 130 “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun”. Up to this point, both of them are overusing love poem tropes as satires against the idea of employing exaggerative descriptions in love poems, much like how the Watchmen and The Boys are satirical series against the superhero genre. The second stanza takes a sterner tone as the poet talks about the cons of not sleeping with him. He throws in the dark images of her impending loss of youth and eventual death. He also had the audacity to claim how her virginity will go to waste as she rots in her grave. Her beauty, honor, his lust shall all go to dust. Obviously, it is highly dubious that this approach of argument will win any girl’s favor. This, along with the tone this poem can be read with (E.g. The grave’s a fine and private place, But none, I think, do there embrace.) then further provides evidence of this poem’s purpose as a satire: To tell its intended reader that such exaggerated compliments not only does not truly reveal one’s love and passion, they are also dangerous should the girl fall too deep into its “candy-coated lies”. Hence the aggressive tone in the second stanza, where one might assume the poem to be chiding her out of desperation rather than persuading her. Then one comes to the final stanza, where the poet makes his closing argument. Here the poet notes his mistress’ sexual interest and persuades her to seize this moment, while she is young, to enjoy sex with him. The poem has reached its climax, it is possible that the poet intended this last part to be recited with a kind of fervor or passion. Even though they will continue to age, they will not let age catch up to them that easily. They cannot stop time nor the Sun, but they will sure as hell make the Sun run after them by indulging in sexual pleasures. While it is easy to think that this “seizing the moment” mentality is simply used to persuade his mistress to sleep with him, it might actually go deeper than that. Perhaps he is referring to her coyness to love him back, her fear to open up and have sex. Thus, I believe the poem’s overall message/intention is not to warn its readers of the dangers of being seduced by beautiful/overly exaggerating compliments, but to tell its readers to “just do it” if he/she wants to. There is only you yourself that is holding you back. Much like what the video suggests, this last stanza can be applied to anything, from sex to bungee jumping. But most importantly, I believe it is about love. One should not be afraid to love someone or be loved. Love is difficult, because it means devoting your feelings into another, sharing your most intimate fears, compromising; it also means that there is a possibility of you getting hurt. But when one still has that health and youth, one should try doing it; open up and risk everything for love. Perhaps ultimately, the poet suggests that maybe he will be the man she be worth melting for (and having sex with, of course). This is why I too believe this is a parody, not a satire. While satire seeks to persuade its audience of the ridiculousness of something (In this case, love poems and its tropes) and attacks the genre and its values as a whole, parody affirms the literary form that it’s inhabiting and its values but twist it to expose flaws. Marvell exposes the problem of appealing to a girl with overly exaggerated compliments and talking about death and her aging process etc. He then establishes the poem’s true message: that one should just love/make love with a raging heart while one still can (and he is here for the girl, the man to love her back). This is why the poem is so powerful, not in its ways of sexual persuasion, but of its message to seize the moment to do anything you have ever dreamed while you still can, especially opening up to the possibility of romance.
Wong Hin Lam Chloe (4114914) It is the way the over-all message of the poem can resonate in our own lives that gives To His Coy Mistress its lasting power, not the direct address to the girl in it. What is that overall message? The overall message of the poem is “Time never waits, do not let time dictates your life.” The argument of the speaker first begins with a confession to his coy mistress that, if world and time were limitless, which would never happen for human of course, being together and having sex with each other need not to be rush. The mistress could still reject him for many times and they can spend time in different places individually. Since they have got limitless time, the speaker can have “vegetable love” that grows slowly but strongly on his coy mistress, and he can spend plenty of time to praise her body parts. In fact, the idea of the speaker presented in stanza one is quite meaningless because there is no actual limitless time in human’s life. Therefore, in the second part of the poem, he turns back to reality and uses his words to hit the mistress with the fact that one day she is going to get old, her beauty will no longer exist, died and buried in the grave, only the worms will experience what he presently longs for: so please be reality checked. Protecting the virginity in her youth is not worthy, he is trying to convince the coy mistress to stop being coy, she needs to express her love to him instantly while they still have time. In the final part of the poem, the speaker becomes more aggressive, he uses words such as “sports”, “roll” and “tear” to sum up his argument and make it sounds more passionate and powerful. I think the kind of people that can resonate their own lives with this poem are those who promote chastity. In Marvell’s times, I suspect that many females are like what he describes as “coy”, he wants these people to be more realistic after reading his poem. Although people nowadays seem to be less concerned about their virginity but I believe that there are people still being “coy” or simply not trying to live their best lives, the poem has its lasting power because his target audience exist in every generation. The coy mistress here can be anyone that never having had sex before. The speaker tries to convince this group of people to treasure their time while they still can and enjoy every moment in their lives. The poem conveys a message that life is short, and time is limited, therefore people should express their love to their lovers boldly so that they can seize every moment being together without regret.
Caila Espiritu (4141694) The overall message in “To His Coy Mistress” is to do the thing you want to do regardless of how nerve-wracking it is because time will not wait for anyone. At first read, this is not obvious; the poem shows a three-part story in which Marvell romantically--but more so sexually--pursues a supposedly shy woman. To convince her, he uses time to his advantage. In the first stanza, he mentions the things they could do if they had all the time in the world. For example, “We would sit down, and think which way / To walk, and pass our long love’s day” and “hundred years should go to praise / Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze; / Two hundred to adore each breast, / But thirty thousand to the rest”. Marvell lists out the most romantic actions that could be done if, one, she falls for him; and two, if time could go on forever. If we apply this idea to life in general, it shows an idealistic, romanticized view of the world. If time never ran out, one would do everything they have always wanted to, while taking their time to do so.
However, the second stanza serves as a pessimistic reality check, as suggested by the conjunction, “But”. Marvell uses a “wingèd chariot hurrying near” as a metaphor for time and how it will arrive in a fast and violent manner, instead of slowly and peacefully. Essentially, time can be cruel and will come for anyone whether they like it or not. Moreover, the words “worms”, “dust”, and “ashes” can be connected to death, further serving as examples for the life’s grim reality. Nevertheless, Marvell does not dwell on this too much. Instead, he uses it as a reason to make the mistress sleep with him, because if she refuses, she will die with regret that will follow her even in the comforts of her “marble vault”. On top of all that, the lines “The grave’s a fine and private place, / But none, I think, do there embrace.” can be interpreted in many ways, though I personally see it as a sarcastic line. It is almost as if Marvell is saying that death can be peaceful, but there is no excitement unless she sleeps with him, like he is performing reverse-psychology on her to get her, and in real life’s case, the readers of the poem. Finally, the last stanza is a more realistic take on time. He says “though we cannot make our sun / Stand still, yet we will make him run”, which is a reminder that although time is beyond our control, we as humans still have the ability to decide what we do in our lives and how we choose to live. Ultimately, the deeper overall message of “To His Coy Mistress” remains relevant to this day, especially when more people prioritize work/school to the point that they forget to take time off and enjoy the remaining years they have on Earth. We may be coy towards life-hesitant to do things beyond our routines, and Marvell tells us to seize the day because time is ruthless, and it is better to die regretting the things we have done instead of the things we never got to do.
This poem is somewhat ambiguous for me. Even if the flow of the poem itself looks like seducing a young lady who's sexually conservative or pretends to be conservative, it is just too much and doesn't make any sense for me. I wonder who on earth will be so sarcastic to seduce a lover, especially the second stanza is the worst when he says "then worms shall try that long-preserved virginity and your quaint honour turn to dust". It sounds almost insulting. If we take a look of the first sentences of each stanza, the logic of the poem is IF we had enough world and time, you being sexually conservative doesn't matter because we have enough world and time to spend for spiritual love without sex BUT the reality is not like that. Life is too short and time goes quickly. THEREFORE, let's enjoy everything that we're supposed to do (definitely having sex with me)'. This logic of him asking love for a lover is too blatant and focused on 'physical' love which does not seem to be attractive or sincere at all. Because it is too blatant and explicit, it raises doubts in my mind that it isn't really a love poem. After searching about Andrew Marvell, I found out that he was a puritan, a group of religious people who had strict principles and disapproved of physical pleasure. The combination of fact that the poet was Puritan and the too much blatant and even sarcastic poem kinda worked for me that the poem itself is full of paradox or sarcasm which implies that warning against seduction or physical pleasure.
Lifewriting Demi Kong Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analyzing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking To His Coy Mistress as a case in point, this poem can be argued strongly that it is a piece of Lifewriting that the poet expresses his desperation towards his mistress, although many may assume it to be satirical writing because of its overt connotation of sexual libertinism. The poet sets up a syllogism to persuade his mistress to accept him. Simplifying Marvell’s syllogism, it should go as “if we have enough time, we can delay; but we do not have enough time; therefore we cannot delay.” This syllogism may seem valid, but in fact it falls into the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I cannot tell if Marvell deliberately wrongs the syllogism. It is indeed a romantic persuasion. And from the perspective of a desperate suitor, this is also a possible reaction that he is deeply affected by his mistress. He may be thinking about her all day, as he suggests in the poem, if he has gotten enough time, he can flatter her for the longest time. And that makes him can no longer keep himself sane. Besides, although the syllogism is not logical, the emotions Marvell gives in the poem presents a very powerful persuasion. He manipulates the use of pronouns in a very clever way to show his feelings. While he wants to express the distant and cold relationship he feels with his mistress, he uses the form you/your, instead of thou/thee/thy, from the second-person singular pronoun. The former form indicates formality and the latter, intimacy. So, when Marvell says “And you should, if you please, refuse / Till the conversion of the Jews” and “For, lady, you deserve this states, / Nor would I love at lower rate,” it reveals how nonintimate and cold he and his mistress are. Also, the concluding stanza further exposes the desperation that the poet gets by emphasizing the animal properties that human possesses. The phrases “sport”, “birds of prey”, “tear” and “run” all are referencing animals. Because at this stage, all he wants is to have a sexual relationship with the girl and lure her in. Overall, the poet at first may still show the admiration and affection for his mistress, but then it is all debased by lust and desperation.
Aison Clark Laborte, ENG-3385 Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analyzing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking To His Coy Mistress as a case in point the poem is more of a satirical warning. The first two stanzas were meant to be seducing and probably an attempt to sound romantic. It felt like the poet was slowly building up to something. But by the third stanza, he just straight up asked the girl to have sex with him with some aggressive remarks. Assuming that the first two stanzas were romantically seducing, the last stanza quickly escalated any potential growing passionate sensation. Though, with some hyperbole that was used by the poet in the first two stanzas, it can be seen that they do not really mean to sound romantic after all. Instead of sounding encouraging or complimenting, it sounded more as a threat and harassment. It sounded like harassment with the hyperbolic line “Two hundred to adore each breast”. He sounded like he only wanted to have a sexual connection with her rather than a spiritual love connection. His lust has become more evident with his line that comments on her appearance “Thy beauty shall no more be found”. It implies that she would be disposed and not be wanted once her beauty has gone because of old age. The poet then threatened her virginity with time and death, mentioning that worms would get her virginity. He was trying to say it would be better to lose her virginity to him rather than to die a virgin. This does not sound romantic at all. It can be argued that it may be unfair to judge the insincerity being brought by exaggeration because sometimes, as a writer, it is quite difficult to describe a certain feeling with words. Even the threat about her virginity can be argued that the feeling of wanting to connect with the woman is genuine because it is possible that some women are attracted to hearing something dangerous and threatening. This is also certainly a similar case to some men. But, perhaps, from a literature perspective, this poem is a satire to love poems due to its outrageous sexual comment and insult for the woman’s virginity which has always been regarded as being honorable to keep it. This is more evident when this poem was written during the period that casual sex is discouraged. The fact that the poet was a politician may even suggest his conservative view on sex to the public.
Lifewriting Chan Ki Tung, Tony Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analyzing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking To His Coy Mistress as a case in point, the hyperbole and satire in the poem indeed make the readers doubtful of Andrew Marvel’s true intentions. However, I suggest that one could look at how the metaphysical poets, Marvel included, in ascertaining his romantic feelings to the woman he addresses in the poem. According to Dr. Johnson, the metaphysical poets, though “whose ideas are yoked by violence together”, “were men of learning, and, to show their learning was their whole endeavor”. Not unlike John Donne’s the Flea, which makes use of logic or rationality in getting women, Marvel uses syllogism in order to get laid. He makes his premises explicitly in the first two stanzas and his conclusion in the final stanza: “Had we but world enough and time” (if we had infinite time) But at my back I always hear Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near (but we had finite time) ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ Now therefore, while the youthful hue (therefore, you should…) In other words, what he is trying to put across is that: we do not have enough time so “you” should not pretend to be coy anymore and let have sex with me. However, logic alone won’t do. Marvel also employs rhetoric device, making his argument much more convincing. As Philip Larkin said, “What still compels attention to Marvell’s work is the ease with which he manages the fundamental paradox of verse - the conflict of natural word usage with metre and rhyme - and marries it either to hallucinatory images within his own unique conventions or to sudden sincerities that are as convincing in our age as in his". This is especially so in the last stanza where Marvel told the woman to roll “up into one ball” and strike “through the iron gate of life”. Therefore, To His Coy Mistress is a mixture of logic and rhetoric that aims to convince the woman addressed. However, critics may deny the analysis just made because Andrew Marvel, as indicated by biographical facts, is a rather reserved person, who barely involved in a romantic relationships. This might mean that the woman he addresses in To His Coy Mistress is pure imagination. However, I am inclined to believe that the poem, ventriloquized by Marvel through a persona, is an attempt to satirize people of his contemporaries, probably John Donne, who was excel at getting laid with his logic farce. This could be evidenced by the title per se “To His Coy Mistress”. Marvel called the poem “To His Coy Mistress” instead of “To My Coy Mistress”. This could mean that he attempts to distance himself from the poem through a persona. And as I have mentioned above, the “His” might suggest John Donne or people of similar, who used his learnings to seduce women. Also, some of the sentences made by this persona is comically absurd. For a given piece of satirical work to be legitimate, it, in the first place, has to be too absurd to be true. For instance, you could not possibly believe that Jonathan Swift indeed proposed cannibalizing young children or that Chip Tsao really meant it when he called the Philippine “nation of servants”. In my opinion, To His Coy Mistress works as a Horatian satire, which uses witty and comical lines to laugh at his contemporaries. This is exemplified by his persona praising the woman’s body parts for a time far exceeding the life expectancy of a normal human being. These satires all point to the fact that a group of learned men, who makes use of their rationality, persuade women by telling them carpe diem. But this, in Marvel’s eyes, is laughable, if not absurd.
Lifewriting Dickson Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analysing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking To His Coy Mistress as a case in point, the poem could be interpreted in different ways to different readers. But for me, this poem was more like a genuine love expression rather than a parody or satirical writing. One of the possible argument could be argued from the line “An age at least to every part, and the last age should show your heart.” Starting from the lady’s eyes, Marvell’s sequence of praising different parts of the girl seems to be determined based on his extent of adoration, as the time he wished to spent with them prolonged one by one. The sentence “and the last age should show your heart” seems to suggest that the girl’s heart was the ultimate thing that Marvell was longed for and adore, that he would choose to save it till the last and spend ages to stay with it. If this poem was simply a satirical writing which mocks at the excessive type of romantic approach, this heart-seeking intention seems redundant and unsuitable. Apart from that, if the poem was a satirical writing, the poem did not seems obvious enough (for me) in letting the audience spot out the sarcasm in it. If the poem was intended to be written as a warning or satire of a particular type of poet or poem, the sarcasm in the poem was supposed to be more obvious or comprehendible so that the intention of the poet could be well perceived by the audience. Although it would not be totally impossible to eliminate the possibility that Marvell wrote this poem as a parody, this poem seems to be more suitable in being comprehended as a direct love poem, due to its beautiful last stanza that highlight the importance of “life is short, why don’t we seize the present moment and make love”.
ENG3385 Lifewriting Liu Xu Fen Hugo (4024626) Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analyzing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking ‘To His Coy Mistress’ as a case in point, while some readers may consider this piece as a satirical take on a blunt approach on romance that somewhat invokes aggressive imagery, others would view this as truthful lifewriting. It is understandable to view this poem in the former way, because of how over the top certain lines are, and these words are perhaps too excessive for some to be off-putting, definitely not a sensible way for one’s romantic endeavors. To reinforce this idea, when reading the poem in a certain tone it would seem that Marvell is speaking sarcastically, as demonstrated in the lecture. Therefore, it is not difficult to treat this poem as poking fun of the described seduction techniques. However, I do think this poem is genuinely a piece of lifewriting by Marvell, instead of just mocking people with such approach to romantic relationships. First of all, regarding of readers’ tonal interpretation of the piece, it can also be read completely seriously without any kind of satire, which is displayed in the lecture as well. But most importantly, I would point to Marvell’s history to argue for the poem’s sincerity. ‘To His Coy Mistress’ is widely believed to be written in the early 1650s, the same time Marvell served as a tutor for the daughter of a political elite and military strongman Thomas Fairfax. While he taught the daughter of one of the most powerful man in England then, developing romantic relations with her could hardly lead to a happy ending, especially as his life is pretty much on the line with this. Furthermore, England then was undergoing a troubling time, with the ending of the long Civil War and the ascension of Oliver Cromwell. The politically unstable situation would surely discouraged Marvell to get together with a woman so close to the elite circle. The major point of this poem is to seize the opportunity when it presents itself, when time rarely allow second chances. Under the circumstances as mentioned above, one can deduce that he decided to give up on pursuing Fairfax’s daughter. Rather than seeing this poem as satire, it can be seen as expressing regret. His regret being not seizing the valuable chance to further build a romantic relationship with the woman, hence his emphasis throughout the poem telling readers not to do so. This is Marvell reflecting on his mistake made in his lifetime.
@@mycroftlectures Thanks a bunch.Sir I've heard that vegetable love connotes male sexual organ since it looks like many a vegetable item.Do you think it's sensible?
Yeah, but she knows who's left holding the baby. Girls have heard all this before, so she replies: "If all the world and love were young...In folly ripe, but reason rotten...had joys no date and age not need...." Our girl has heard other poets besides him. :-)
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the best lecture I have ever heard in my entire life. All I can say is gratitude, gratitude and gratitude.
You're very welcome.
after watching this lecture, I was all smiles and almost shy (I felt like this poem was written to me). great lecture...
Who could possibly dislike such a masterclass such as this? Such quality and at no expense.
I think one cannot but laugh and blush to hear this poem, especially the last stanza, as you have done :) I have enjoyed it in class but you do have a different take for poetry appreciation, and I've really loved this video, so please try to continue filming videos like this.
This is such a great lecture. I'd feel no regret skipping my 40min class to watch his lecture.
I like to think that "vegetable love" is intended to be read as "veg-et-ab-le love". Isolating each syllable makes the couplet scan, and that forces the reader to slow down, punning on the slowness theme.
Yeah. That would add a nice touch, I agree.
A thoughtful and thorough analysis that includes various ways to emphasize, in reading aloud, certain words, giving different meanings.
People must appreciate the sound of the words to appreciate poetry.
Thank you Dr. Barker, for generously devoting time and effort to this project.
Next, I'll watch your Philip Larkin video.
Jock Stender, Charleston, SC
Wonderful lecture. A great sense of humor you have. Love to hear more of your lectures.
I have an exam tomorrow and our teacher expects us to analyze this poem. I gain a different point of view thanks to your great video. Thank u so much it was so fun to watch.
Good luck.
I was all smiles from the start. Been smiling for about an hour, I hardly noticed!
thanks mate, ive never enjoyed studying my midterms like this before. gonna make sure watching your other videos
Glad to help.
Excellent exposition of Marvell's poem. I never realized the meaning of all that detail. So refreshing that you laid your cards on the table, as Professors around the year 1900 would never dream of being so honestly explicit, even to an all-male classroom. This lecture's theme reminded me of nurse Thelma Ritter's remark to James Stewart about getting off the fence and marrying Grace Kelly in Hitchcock's Rear Window: "When two people love each other, they come together-WHAM-like two taxis on Broadway." Then again, as we are talking more of lust rather than love, there is the guy at the bar saying "Hey, baby. How do you live your eggs in the morning?" To which the blonde knockout says "unfertilized."
Many thanks. Glad to be helpful. As a side, note, I taught Rear Window a few years ago and despite the shot, reaction shot, brilliance of it the class had a justifiable problem with believing Grace Kelly would go out of her way to try and impress James Stewart. As did I. He's just not charismatic enough to pull someone who is so clearly out of his league as she is. Clearly writers of that time were given a lot more social standing than they have today.
@@mycroftlectures When I last watched Rear Window with my husband John, he remarked that Grace Kelly shouldn't be chasing James Stewart, the guy should be doing the chasing--which I, Colleen, think is a male chauvinist remark. Grace Kelly in that film came across as strong, adventurous, gutsy, brave and daring- much more than stunning good looks, which was the point. So many guys think Kelly's role in that film is the ultimate male dream, meaning gorgeous+ chasing HIM! It's easy for an Everyman to put themselves in James Stewart's place, and for the guy to think "She's coming after ME!" Getting away from my personal views, I heard film scholar Peter Bogdanovich in commentary on To Catch a Thief DVD. He was asked to compare Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart, as they both starred in 4 Hitchcock films each. Bogdanovich said: "Jimmy Stewart is more American and less sophisticated than Cary, less good looking, and somewhat less dangerous and couldn't go quite as far in the comedy. Stewart- the intensity of the vulnerability you could go further with, so you could have scenes like Vertigo, where he becomes a love-struck man, I don't think you could have done that with Cary, or as well at all. Or the concerned father in The Man Who Knew Too Much or the kind of guy who roughs it in Rear Window. Very different, very American, more macho, more vulnerable, strangely enough, and Cary more sophisticated, somewhat more distant, more aloof, funnier." End of Bogdanovich quote. I would add this question: In the Hollywood of today, would either James Stewart or Henry Fonda even be able to get a job acting? Which says more about the idiotcy of Hollywood today. From Fonda's roles in Young Mr.Lincoln to Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath, his acting chops are impeccable. But no leading man job in Hollywood today because of his lack of great looks. And Jimmy Stewart- just look at the overwhelming intensity of furious anger mixed with crushing emotional hurt as he drags Kim Novak up the tower stairs at the end of Vertigo. This is acting on the highest scale and no one else I can think of could do it as well. So your remark of Kelly being out of his league seems to be judging Stewart on his looks.Kim Novak said of all the famous leading men she started with, her favorite was Jimmy Stewart.
The part curiously cut out above was my thinking John's remark chauvinistic. Kelly in that movie was strong, adventurous, gutsy, daring. She was much more than stunning good looks
Thanks a lot for the detailed analysis... I personally think that in the first stanza he flatters the mistress in the hope that she might succumb to his desires, but when that didn't seem to get him anywhere he begins to get desperate and becomes aggressive, and finally tries to reason it out with her by pointing out to the fact that she should enjoy the pleasures of life during her youth itself...The image conveyed through the phrase 'iron gates of life' might refer to the rules that she adheres to which keeps her away from him..The restrictions that she has laid down in her life willingly or for the society..He suggests her to break free of all these restrictions and enjoy herself ...
Yep. Makes perfect sense. I agree that "iron gates of life" could be read in that way, but can we not have a lot more fun with the phrase reading it as some have done in the comments below?
Hi Andrew came across your lectures while searching info on John Donne. Thank you so much for your lectures and time . Illuminating and so interesting. I have become a fan.
Great analysis. Thank you. You made me laugh out loud.
Don Ulin's reading added to my interest in re-reading a poem that we may assume we know well because it is so celebrated on account of its perfect balance of wit and imagery. At the same time I can't see how we can tell for certain that Marvell's readers would interpret it infallibly as a cautionary, parodic love-poem. If that were the case, his memorable final couplet would have been utterly counter-productive to promoting that particular end. If we can detect hermeneutic subtleties in Shakespeare and Donne, we are certainly capable of detecting them in Marvell whose English is closer to modern English than theirs. Of course one could argue that Marvell has his cake and eats it by making his meaning deliberately ambivalent. If so, what would be the point? Don, who certainly sounds very knowledgeable on Marvell, implies that there is an arcane knowledge shared by 17th C literature specialists that the rest of us don't really know about. Much of the imagery, e.g the iron gates, if decontextualised, can be interpreted either way. The difference between this alternative, reading of the poem and Swift's Modest Proposal essay is that the irony and bitterness of tone in the latter is clearly discernible by a contemporary reader too. By contrast, Marvell's supposed desire to promote chastity is a lot less obvious to the contemporary reader, and is open only to those insiders who can deconstruct his apparent wit to uncover a Puritan ascetic....in such case he's really in deep cover and assumes the enemy's style and tone impeccably. At the same time I agree that the references to mortality tend to lend a serious undertone to the light flippancy and irony of the poem's style. All in all a fascinating dialectic on a timeless (wingèd chariot or no chariot!), truly great poem, Mike
+Mike Ingham Nicely put. And it's a fascinating point Don Ulin raises there. A definite forthcoming essay question for future students too, I should think.
Simply great. Your exposition of To His Coy Mistress. My regards.
It's really helpful for understanding the poem. Thank you for uploading this!
Kudos aplenty to the good Dr! Loved this poem and the interpretation of it.👌👍👍
Dr Andrew , you are just awesome..To His Coy Mistress which I just read for reading sake during my study at the college but after hearing the explanation of the same poem from you it became one of my favourites.
Many thanks. Glad to have been of help.
Your lectures are actually very helpful. Please make some more vids .
Excellent explanation. Complicated poem yet felt light. Thanks Mr. Andrew
thanks a lot Dr. Andrew sir. i have enjoyed ur lecture.i was little confused about this poem bt ur lecture is awesome tht everything is transparent to me now.
Well done. Brilliantly explained.
Beautifully explained...regards
Winderful lecture. Thank you Sir
With Don Ulin’s argument about the poem being built on a false syllogism in mind, perhaps we can read this poem as Marvel’s acknowledgement of the fleeting nature of life and also his criticism of those people - exemplified in poems such as John Donne’s The Flea - who exploit the notion of ‘carpe diem/ seize the day’ to justify their sexual desires?
For Marvel, life is brief - ‘at my back I always hear/ time’s winged chariot hurrying near’ - and so we should live life to its full potential - ‘though we cannot make our sun/ stand still, yet we will make him run’ - is a perfectly logical notion. And yet how brief is life exactly? Is it so brief that one should give up one’s virginity so easily and casually? I bet the answer for Marvel is not, as evidenced by the contrast he made between the first and the second stanza regarding the urgency of death. In the first stanza the poetic persona argues that he would ‘praise thine eyes’ and ‘adore each breast’ if they have ‘an hundred years’ or ‘ two hundreds’ even to live. But because they don’t they have to ‘sport us while we may’ without a moment of hesitancy or his mistress would die - almost immediately/ in the next stanza - and ‘then worms shall try/ that long preserved virginity/ and your quaint honour turn to dust.’ As a reader I think this note of urgency in his argument is too hyperbolic to the extent that it sounds absurd, for the persona has given his mistress a Hobson’s choice - it’s either death with ‘worms trying that virginity’ or sensuality, and since no one would opt for the former the mistress doesn’t really have a choice. And this should not necessarily be the case.
The persona’s argument is logical by the looks of it, but is in fact illogical; and the persuading techniques he uses also seem farcical. I tend to believe Marvel intends to present the argument as such in order to criticise those people who attempt to take advantage of the rational, logical notion of seizing the moment to satisfy their irrational, illogical sexual desires. And his criticism could be further evidenced by the simile he used in the first stanza - ‘vegetable love’ - which has two meanings: that of the persona’s, which denotes his love for his mistress to be growing slowly but vastly; and that of Marvel’s, which connotes that the persona’s love for his mistress being lowly - as the ‘vegetable soul’ is lower than the other two divisions of the soul (i.e. ‘animal’ and rational.’)
The aforementioned ideas that I've come with, indeed, are based on the assumption that the poetic persona is not the poet, namely Marvel himself. In the video you refer the poetic persona to Marvel (‘In the poem, Andrew Marvel is trying to get laid’), but I am inclined to consider the poetic persona of this poem as some man other than Marvel, as evidenced by the title of the poem, which is called ‘To HIS Coy Mistress’ rather than ‘To MY Coy Mistress’. In using the pronoun ‘His’, Marvel has distanced himself, and by extension his readers - us - from the poetic persona and his views, and in turn positions us to be more critical - even to challenge - the persona’s argument about having sex while we still can because time is our enemy - ‘yonder all before us lie deserts of vast eternity.’ And I think such argument as befitted his being a metaphysical poet, who, as you say, ‘tend to investigate the world through witty yet rational discussions of its phenomena rather than by intuition or mysticism.’
Brillant as always, Venus. Particularly well argued in the last paragraph.
I think the moral lesson about "just do it" expressing by the poem works for me.
From my point of view, the coyness represents an excuse for the mistress to refuse his flattery, as well as an excuse for people who refuses to try a new thing. At the first stanza, he creates the argument by saying if he had all the world and time, he would be doing all the preparation to get the girl. For me, he knows he will succeed since he would spend all his attention to her. However, it is not the case. Time flies like winged-chariots and the passion to his mistress may disappear. It symbolises people's desire in things they want to pursue may be washed away by time. Therefore, the last stanza, he suggests to the mistress not to pretend to be shy. They should get together when they are attractive to each other and enjoy their time. I think this symbolises that people should do whatever they desire when they are young and passionate.
I think the reason i came up with the argument above is that the association between lust and desire. Lust is the in-born sexual desire of human. But after civilisation, these kinds of basic wants have to be hidden and we learn to seek other sources of happiness. But lust itself is the first desire human being is supposed to have, so the representation of lust to be every desire works for me well. Thus, the allegory "just do it" also works for me.
This poem takes the form of argument and reasoning. In the first stanza, the poet has put emphasis on the time. He assumes that our love can built on conversation and speech instead of sexual relationship, given that we all have enough time to do so. If we have enough time, we can establish a close relationship without any sexual acts. However, in the second stanza, he says ‘But’, we in fact actually do not have the time and we all are going to die. He demonstrates that the assumption above is not grounded by saying that our life is short and time is limited. The fact is that we all have not enough time to develop that kind of relationship without any sex at all. In the third stanza, he concludes his argument by claiming that we will not be young forever and therefore we have to take advantage of it while we can. On the surface, the poem seems to be a lover’s argument in favor of pursuing sexual pleasure. But if we dig deep, he actually put forward the idea of seizing the day and live it the fullest as we can. I believe that there is no escape from the life and the laws of time. Though we cannot stop the time, we still can make use of it and enjoy it while it is passing. Personally, I am in favor of the idea of seizing the day. Like many metaphysical poet, he might suggest us that we should enjoy the present and trust as little as possible to the future. If we have seized the day and live life to the fullest, we might possibly avoid the regret of not having engaging in the adventurous side of life.
Great view of perceiving the poem! Never thought of that!!
This is an amazing poem. I think this poem can be divided into three parts: Perfect assumption, the cruel reality or there is a delicious irony in all this, and conclusion or what he wants to say.
Why do I love this poem or what do I think this poem is amazing are because it is so true! The sight floated before my eyes! At first, he makes a perfect assumption: had we but world enough and time, it is same with if we had the enough time. If we have enough time, I could love you forever, and I could spend time to love “an age at least to every part”. You know, it could be so romantic, but also could be so strange. Maybe we could say that I love you forever, but we will not say how, because we almost know how long will our life with this body last, but he did. And second part, the first sentence, but at my back I always hear time’ s winged chariot hurrying near. This sentence is so amazing, I use amazing to describe this sentence because I could feel it, it is sound like a time bomb, in some movies, we couldn’t see the time bomb, but we could hear the sound, di di di di… and along with the sound be faster, we could feel the atmosphere become serious, this sentence also gives me this feeling. And “then worms shall try that long-preserved virginity”. This sentence is shocking me. It is not wrong, but will you write this sentence to your lover? Obviously not! But he did. And the last part, “while the youthful hue sits on thy skin like morning dew, and while thy whiling soul transpires at every pore with instant fires”. Oh my god. This poem is a letter to a “Coy Mistress”, but it is so exposed. Again， will you do this? Not, but he did. So I think this poem is so amazing.
I got many idea through your explanation. Thank you Dr.
Excellent analysis. This has been very helpful. Thank you!
You mentioned the importance of changing stresses within the poem. If its applied to the title “To His Coy Mistress”makes me wonder who are the target readers of this poem and the significance of the persona. I had great doubt about who the "he" in the poem is.
I understand it is most common to study the poem with carpe diem as a focus, but what concerns me is that Marvel is justifying his illogical reasoning with Time and he made it explicit, like saying we should not rush into things only for the sake of time.
Mistress a only an imaginative character, as you believe this poem actually talks about opportunities. I agree that the poem can be talking about different things, I think Marvell is talking about his writing ideas, as good ideas will be silenced if you don't put them forward and they will be forgotten in time. In the later part of his poem the ball imagery reminds me of a knowledge sphere and that the poem concludes with the hope of his idea or message runs.
Great explanation sir....
this whole poem is so flirtatious...like on another hand yes he is complimenting her youth and beauty, but there's also a certain undertone conveyed in his lines that she would fall in love eventually, the only thing matter is how long it will take; which is why he wrote "and the last age should show your heart", so he's simply saying "since you gonna fall in love with me anyway, why not speed things up and use the youth and beauty with me while you still have it." And how cocky he sounded when he talked about her virginity, as if he is the only one who would be interested in love with her, by implying that "if you don't have sex with me, no one gonna be and you will just die a virgin." Pretty sure if this tone is used nowadays with his "you know you want me" it will be despised by women
Sir, your videos are my life savers. Can you please make some more? ;)
In revisiting your terrific lecture I noticed a post saying you got this poem "inside out" and that it was a warning to young girls against allowing a seduction- a view I totally disagree with. This posting also mentioned Marvell serving as tutor to the daughter of a man of high position and would not risk being known as the author of poems of seduction. I believe it important to keep in mind that during the poet's lifetime, i.e. Shakespeare, his "sugared sonnets" were " circulated privately among his friends." Plus, talking of risque poetry as a threat to one's job- consider John Donne's life at St.Paul's not just in lieu of a poem of seduction like The Flea. What about Donne's youthful poem The Apparition beginning "When by thy scorn, I murderess I am dead" that goes on to describe possible homicidal assault when she is in bed with her sleeping lover? How would this have affected the future Dean of St. Paul's? And don't say these poems were unknown. The England of 500 years ago wasn't as wishy-washy and hypersensitive as the world we live in now.
I've set the question of how satirical we think Donne is being in this poem, to students a few times now and get some very interesting results. Is this a persona poem or not? In a rather serendipitous moment I was look for a biography of Donne in order to answer this question for myself once and for all. One imparting the information you have just disclosed. I can't help feeling that if Donne is attempting to mock a certain type of seduction poetry, as Shakespeare certainly does in My Mistress Eyes are Nothing Like the Sun, then in the final stanza Donne writes the most convincing seduction poem ever put on paper in his attempt to mock the genre. But satire is a weird thing. I have trouble enough knowing whether someone is mocking something they find stupid, or just being stupid in have the posts I read on the modern world. There's an extended sonnet of mine called American Lies where I contemplate this. How to judge the satirical values of four-hunded years ago is very difficult for us. Ben Johnson's On My First Son, reads like a satire on the hyper-religious to me, and I'm pretty sure he's being serious. I'm pretty sure Donne is being serious, in the final stanza for sure, but wouldn't bet my life on it. Though I would bet my life on the 'truth' of his final argument.
@@mycroftlectures First two quotes 1) In the end truth will out - Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice 2) There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so- Shakespeare, Hamlet
I read just read your American Sonnet and think it is outstanding. But I think you go off the beaten track when ascribing hypersensitivity to a desire by some to Protect. Although further on the line "Look at me" hits close to the truth. The idea of some kind of Puritan mind-set behind The day satire died- isn't Puritan. I am reminded of HL Menckin defining Puritan belief as worrying that somewhere out there someone may be having fun. This desire to 'clean up' or revise society is as least as old as attempting to banish The Road Runner cartoons because it's violent content could tramitize little ones. Pu-leese! This has nothing to do with any Faith and is much closer to a naked power play. I can just think up a possible example: "On Fame" by John Keats describing her ( fame) as a coy manipulative girl- Wait a minute! Can't have that. It's mysoginistic. I can imagine another one. In Cheers, cynical Italian waitress Carla is invited to an opera visit to make up to Diane for a perceived insult to her. Carla says "Count me out. Everyone I go to family reunions, they are always trying to get me interested in Opera. A bunch of fat, homely people screeching and trying to stab each other" to which Frasier replies "Not all opera is like that, Carla" which leads to Carla's "What opera?I was talking about the family reunions." Wait! Can't have that. It's anti- Italian ( and I speak as one with an Italian husband and enormous opera fan) Once upon a time ( in a galaxy far, far, away) a University classroom was a protected space where everything was permissable in order to get nearer to truth and understanding in pursuit of the discipline of Philosophy. Now you can forget that- it's called Hate Speech and can get a teacher fired. Those behind cultural sanitizing are not doing this from a misguided understanding of Faith. It is a power play, mind control and an attempt to "improve" human nature. Hence the 20th Century, the bloodiest one Ever. It's wars were not fought for wealth, land or power. It was an attempt to change how people think: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.
@@colleencupido5125 Love that MencKen quote. And Cheers. On the cultural cancelling topic, there's no denying that it's a worry, but I wonder how problematic it really is. There are certainly occasions where the gutlessness of a University Administration in not backing freedom of debate on an issue is a very bad omen. I'm assuming that the very issue of cancelling and free speech on campus will be one of the major issues discussed in universities and that that discussion will stop the "cancelling" of discussion on other topics. Unless those who think that cancelling discussion is a good idea, manage to cancelling the discussion on cancelling. It's always possible, though I think it unlikely, that the discussion on cancelling, will conclude that cancelling discussion is a good thing, but once all the issues are heard, I doubt it. Maybe I've too much faith in the value of a serious debate and discussion, but I really hope I'm right on this one. Though I would be prepared to be dissuaded from my view by a sufficiently powerful counter argument.
I've really enjoyedyour lectures on Seamus Heaney, and so I was curious to hear his lecture on another of my favorites. But I'd like to suggest that you (and a lot of other readers) may have gotten Andrew Marvell's poem inside-out. Some of the comments already posted have alluded to some of what I would call "irritants" that make a reading of this poem as a simple carpe diem poem difficult to sustain. To take one of those, the "iron gates": though the speaker presents them as opening into life (maybe eternal life), iron gates are more likely to be associated with death or even Hell. The gates of life should be made of something more exalted than iron, which I think Marvell intends as one of the final warnings in the poem against the speaker's seduction.
As the smooth sophistication of the first part gives way to the violent imagery of the later parts, we go from mineral love to vegetable love to animal love, but we don't ever get even to human love, let alone anything higher than that. Marvell's audience would have recognized that we had made it less than half way up the great chain of being before descending into violence like birds of prey. There is also the false syllogism on which the entire poem is built, which would have been obvious and maybe even funny to his reader:
P1. "If we had world enough and time, this coyness, lady were no crime"
P2, We don't have world enough.
C. Therefore, this coyness is a crime.
Logically, that is the slightly more complex equivalent of saying
P1. If an animal is a dog then it is not a cat.
P2. It is not a dog.
C. Therefore it is a cat.
I don't remember the technical term -- something like "negating the premise," but you can see that it is a blatant logical fallacy: nothing that would have been lost on Marvell's readers.
So, I''m afraid that to read it the way you do is to be taken in by the parody, as if we were to take seriously Swift's proposal for eating babies. You and I, I'm sure, find Marvel's proposition much more appealing than Swift's, but I don' think he intended it that way at all. Marvell was more of a Puritan than a Cavalier. When the poem was written, he was serving as a tutor to the daughter (or some dependent) of the Parliamentary General Thomas Fairfax: not a position in which he would have wanted to be found out writing seduction poems for young women! More likely, I think it was a poem intended for her as a warning against the dangers of such seduction, shown to be dangerous, illogical, and without any real possibility for movement beyond the animal love. Though it's been too long since I read him to quote chapter and verse, a lot of my understanding of this poem is indebted to a wonderful college professor of mine from UMass by the name of Charles Kay Smith.
I have so enjoyed your other lectures that if you find these ideas at all helpful in rethinking this wonderful poem, I will be glad to have repaid some of that enjoyment.
+Don Ulin Hi Don.Thanks for the praise on the Heaney lectures and for posting this. It is genuinely fascinating for me to read as this is the type of discussion I really enjoy. I think there’s three points here and the last, on the poem being a parody is intriguing and I’ll try and argue as strongly as I can why I think this is not the case. And this is all the more interesting as I am totally willing to accept your view of what is going on here as well.
Point 1.
The first point is to do with the “iron gates of life.” Gates go both ways. I’ve always assumed these were the gates into life, rather than the gates out of life. I assume he is saying that the place they are in is lifeless, but once they get their “mojo” on they’ll be frolicking in the fields of the full and fulfilled existence. Something like that.
Of course, the argument against that is Marvell says the gates OF life not the gates TO life, so we can’t be sure . . .
(The copy of Touched with Fire I have at hand to check this on reads “Thorough the iron grates of life” incidentally.) Anyway . . .
Point 2. The false syllogism on which the entire poem is built, P1. "If we had world enough and time, this coyness, lady were no crime" P2, We don't have world enough. C. Therefore, this coyness is a crime,” is pointed out in the lecture,
isn’t it?
Point 3. Now this is the really contentious/interesting point and reads like an essay question in itself. “To what extent can Andrew Marvell’s ‘To His Coy Mistress’ be read as a warning against the type of seduction techniques demonstrated in the poem, and ventriloquized by Marvell through a persona?”
I hope I’ve got that right, because it’s a great question on, among other things, author’s intentions and our understanding of satire. (I find misunderstandings of satire fascinating, particularly when we live in a world where some things are unsatirizable- if such a word exists, and so many statement that are plainly satire get misunderstood).
If I paraphrase your view on the poem, Marvell is writing a warning to women, in the form of a parody, on the type of seduction techniques written by poets of his time, rather in the same way the first twelve lines Shakespeare’s My Mistress Eyes are Nothing like the Sun, are a parody of the type of easy simile employed by rival poets during his time. I
hope I’ve got that right. (And yes, if this is true I too find Marvell’s suggestion more palatable than Swift’s. Palatable, get it?)
Without writing a full essay on the subject I can certainly see how
“Thy beauty shall no more be found;
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long-preserved virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust;
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace,” could be read in that way, deliberately presented as too aggressively vulgar perhaps to be serious, and the poem’s opening “gambit”, and the historical evidence you site certainly give credence to the view, and I don’t have evidence to hand to refute it. Which doesn’t mean I agree with it.
My contention would be that if To His Coy Mistress was written as a parody of a certain type of poem, and certain types
of arguments, I would say it was an epic backfire. Some parts of it are simply too good and too powerful to be taken that way. I’m thinking especially of the immortal lines:
“But at my back I always hear
Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.”
And:
"Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapped power.
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Through the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.”
I assume the argument against this view would be that although we find these lines powerful and persuasive now, at least I do, that does not mean they would have been taken that way when they were written. And while it is interesting to speculate on that, and it is interesting, I’m always more interested in the words on the page and how we respond to them. For me, an argument could be made for reading the poem in the way you suggest, “we go from mineral love to vegetable love to animal love, but we don't ever get even to human love, let alone anything higher than that . . . we had made it less than half way up the great chain of being before descending into violence like birds of prey,” is a very worthwhile observation which I would counter with, Love is not really what he’s after here. The problem is that
the poem is better and more enjoyable when read without irony as a call to . . . I dunno, “seize the living moment when
in arises cos we’ll all be dead soon anyway.”
(At least for me).
It would be doubly ironic of course if Marvell had actually intended the poem to say, "Watch out for poets who try to
seduce you by saying "seize the living moment when in arises cos we’ll all be dead soon anyway,” as some of the lines in the poem have become the world’s most famous exaltations of exactly that type of thought.
I have been imagining Marvell as the American spy in Nazi Germany working as propaganda agent for Hitler in Kurt Vonnegut's "Mother Night". After the war ends he is talking to a Nazi about whether they knew he was a spy and is told "We always suspected you might be but the propaganda you were doing for us was so effective that we thought that even if you were you couldn't be doing a better job for our cause, so let you get on with it."
Thanks again for these comments they have given me something new to mull over. I’d be curious to know what others thought on this.
@@mycroftlectures1) I don't agree with Ulin that P1 is a false syllogism: "If we had world enough and time, this coyness, lady were no crime" is simply stating that 'coyness' has no value in this world, namely because it is not an unlimited world with unlimited time. Time presses on and waits for no man, or woman. 2) For what it is worth, there is only one 'iron gate' in the bible and after the first and second guard, when Peter is freed from his chains in Herod's prison by the Angel of the Lord, he then passes 'the iron gate' back to the city. If this is what Marvel is alluding to, then the act of enjoyment of the lovers would set them free from the prison into full life and meaning. "Rather at once our time devour
// Than languish in his slow-chapped power. // Let us roll all our strength and all // Our sweetness up into one ball, //And tear our pleasures with rough strife" . "Yet we will make him run" is advocating the speeding of time through life's journey by savouring the enjoyments life offers. 3) "Rather than, descending into violence like birds of prey,”If anything, life will appear short, not long and tedious. So, I must agree with Dr Barker that this brilliant poem were indeed ill-conceived if it were intended as a remedy to the spontaneity and carpe diem. It is time that the 'amorous birds devour'
@@mycroftlectures1) I don't agree with Ulin that P1 is a false syllogism: "If we had world enough and time, this coyness, lady were no crime" is simply stating that 'coyness' has no value in this world, namely because it is not an unlimited world with unlimited time. Time presses on and waits for no man, or woman. 2) For what it is worth, there is only one 'iron gate' in the bible and it is the one Peter passes, after the first and second guard, when he is freed from his chains in Herod's prison by the Angel of the Lord, and returns to the city. If this is what Marvel is alluding to, then the act of enjoyment of the lovers would set them free from the prison into full life and meaning. 3) "Rather than, descending into violence like birds of prey,” if anything, life will appear shorter but happier, not long and tedious. "Rather at once our time devour // Than languish in his slow-chapped power. // Let us roll all our strength and all // Our sweetness up into one ball, //And tear our pleasures with rough strife". It is time that the 'amorous birds devour', not each other. "Yet we will make him run" is advocating the speeding of time through life's journey by savouring the enjoyments life offers. Time will not pass in a heavy and leaden way, but is speeded up by the joy experienced. 4) So, I must agree with Dr Barker that this brilliant poem were indeed ill-conceived if it were intended as a remedy to the possibility of life lived with spontaneity and carpe diem.
please dr andrew barker..provide us with more of ur lectures .. your style of taking class is damn awesome ....
thanks a lot for such wonderful analysis. .kindly do some research on keats too
Very helpful and amusing!
Hana Alaa which part really amused you?
I like the broader interpretation that this is not just a poem about sex. I think the "ball" near the end is a reference to the entangled bodies of a couple engaging all their "strength" and "sweetness" in the act of lovemaking, and the "iron gates of life" refer to the birth canal and her vagina which is currently locked for him.
Hawks and eagles mating, is considered one of the most glorified or graceful ways of having sex. It is, in fact, termed as the 'leap of faith', where they lock talons, and while falling from a great height, mate, the entire way of their descent, as if trusting in each other and only unclock talons almost towards the end of their fall to spread their wings and fly parting from each other, to go their separate ways. (sounds kind of like the one night stand thing Marvel is trying to establish here with his mistress... lol). In fact, in mythology it is believed to be the way dragons would have mated, which is even more daring, graceful and magnetic... dragons would mate in a combining way of eagles and snakes... locking claws and intertwing tails and perhaps whole bodies even (deppending on the species' body shape). It's like they're literally falling for each other... An almost 'You jump, I jump' kind of behaviour. This idea of entangling bolies makes sense of the lines : "Let us roll all our strength and all /Our sweetness up into one ball,..."
Regarding what you spoke of 'time's chariot'.... It gives a sense of time catching up to them, so it's quick on their heals and, therefore, the sense of urgency about engaing in amourous activity before time runs out and their youth is no more. It's also a reference to the idea of Apollo and Artemis' charriots.... They close night and day and vice versa, therby determining time and season. The end or close of a day in Literature is often compared to the full extent of an individual's life coming to a close, starting in the morning and then ending by night. So it would particularly mean Artemis' chariot which brings the night closer, thus ending the day. The idea of the "sun" standing still is mentioned in the last couplet, which is both a mythological (Apollo) and Biblical (Joshua) reference. Plus personifying time as a "he" makes sense here. you also mentioned how Marvel wishes to put time behind them, which is ironic since in the earlier sense of time being quick on their heals behind them, sounds like running out of time, but towards then end sounds like leaving the idea of time behind, like an escape.
The dew is a metaphor for temporariness.... So just as a dew drop does not last long, it's freshness and cooless dries up and thus withers away as the day intensifies and ends, so also her beauty, being compared to a dew drop would wither away. Once agiain the idea of morning is used here, therby confirming what I said about the chariot of Artemis, so morning is the begining of the day, the part also usually associated with innocence, hence connecting it to the idea of virginity.
Also, "not to be crass to sound cool here" (love that line of yours btw), I personally feel that since this poem is purely about getting laid in the purest sense, it would seem that the line: "Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
/ My echoing song;..." seems to sigify that her vagina is the marble vaul where his "song" or 'passion' will not get the chance to "sound" or 'take effect' when she is dead. The word "echoing" gives off a sense of 'repetition', the kind one would engage in, in sexual activity. This makes sense to me since the next line says that if he doesn't get to have her in this life then the worms will, in death, as you explained.
[These are just my opinions of the text. Do let me know what you think about it.]
Nice analysis, and thank you for the comment. I particularly like the temporariness of the dew that you mentioned, that works very well. All the mythological references are sound, as are the Biblical and Titanic ones. I didn’t know that about the mating hawks and eagles. I often wonder with metaphors like this, Did the poet know that? What did the poet know of mating hawks in order to be able to use it as a metaphor. Thinking aloud here, he probably knew more than we do today. Hawking is hardly a modern day pastime, and unless we have chanced upon a nature programme it is not a reference we would know the full meaning of but Marvell could well have been more familiar than we are today. In reference to this video, I think the weakness of it is that I avoid mentioning the constant sexual innuendo in it. At the time I thought this innuendo Monty Pythonesque and didn’t bother but the omission is a weakness on the part of the lecture because it prevents us questioning how far Marvell is being serious about what he says, and the question of how far this poem is a satire on a type of aggressive love poetry rather than an example of it.
@@mycroftlectures True, it probably isn't something Marvel mave have known of (in refernce to the eagle mating) but I do believe he may have had some idea since he was living in time past the age of scientific discovery, and the metaphysical poets were often cinsidered know-it-alls.
Also, regarding the other stuff, I'm glad you liked my points of view. I just love literature.
Thanx for the additional points and that's great!
Dr. Barker, your lectures and notes have been really helpful and are a massive contribution to my scores. It would be really helpful if you could post an analysis of sonnet 146 by William Shakespeare.
I can see how impatient Andrew Marvell was as he wrote what he would do if he had enough time and world. But in fact he did not have such amount of time to do all those things. And he turned to write in a very aggressive tone in the second stanza. The contrast that Andrew Marvell created between the first and second stanza intensified the great desire of how desperate he wanted to have sex with the mistress. The way the poet seduced a girl gives me a feeling that he had some kind of psychological problems or else I cannot imagine someone talking to a girl like this.
amazing lecture
Thank you so much sir , I really like your explaination.
I absolutely love your lectures and they are incredibly helpful! Thanks alot sir.
You're very welcome.
So thankful for this video
Wow, thanks, thanks..... Enjoyed your analysis immensely . There's also a fun response to this poem by Annie Finch. One day you may want to analyze it also. For the fun and pleasure of your ardent fans like me.
+pengjien chen Thanks. There is a comment below by Don Ulin that raises a fascinating point on this poem and is well worth checking out. There are a few replies by myself and Mike Ingham, that counter the point he makes and I think they are convincing, (obviously), but what he says is certainly worth reading for the argument he presents.
mycroftlectures ...sir will you plz. make a video on the poem " Break of day in the trenches" as per the ugc pattern of exam,that I' m preparing for and many more...Bt plz make 1 video,I desperately need help for my exams of coming year of B.A part-3 exam,as in my previous exams of part-1& 2, I HV gained very poor marks in eng. honours- 1st I got 49.5% ND next year 55%...this time I really want to gain up to 70%+ marks...so plz help me a little sir!
The question of audience is important here, as is the audience for whom Shakespeare is writing. Patron? Dark lady? Boyfriend? It's more than that. And the same is true for Marvell.
The immediate assumption one would make is that this poem is addressed to a woman as part of a seduction. But that becomes increasingly less likely as the poem becomes more macabre. Is Marvell just being a guy who has no idea how to seduce a woman and doesn't realise that by the end of the poem few women would be in the mood to leap into his bed? I don't think so - the poem is a tour de force, a wonderful demonstration of wit and ingenuity, and that, I think, is the key.
For whom would such a pyrotechnic poem be intended? I think it's the boys - Marvell's fellow-writers. The poem manipulates and undermines the conventions of seduction, and employs the tools of philosophy and rhetoric to build a soaring conceit that is both absurd and convincing in its sleight of hand and magician's control. He doesn't use the poem for seduction or warning in any conventional sense. It's entirely about virtuoso performance - a monument to his poetic genius, not a means to an ordinary moral or amorous end. The response is not, 'Yeah, baby, take me now!' and neither is it, 'Hmmm. I''d better be circumspect with persuasive poets and take to heart these reflections on the frailty of the flesh.' It's 'What a master-craftsman! What a wordsmith! What an artist! How do I top that?!'
Martin
I was just flicking through these comments and I don't think I'd observed before what a truly perceptive and well-written comment this is, especially the second paragraph. With a bit of historical biography thrown into the mix we find that Marvell's situation makes it unlikely that the poem is really written to seduce a young lady, and yet I'm not fully convinced that the poem is a satire on poems written in the style of the seductive poem. What you say about the poem being written "for the lads" makes good sense. The poem is written for other poets, as a semi-comic, semi-serious, demonstration of Marvell's own poetic capabilities. And it is all the more fun for being so too.
"Iron gates of life" particular part of the female anatomy the author is after.
"Am'rous-birds of prey" birds that in the act of sex fly high in to the sky and free fall down to earth in the act and separate before they hit the ground. Andrew Marvell is attempting to not only remove her inhibitions but to also to have her be a force intent to his wills. This poem is greater than the analysis.
Excellent!
On the surface, Andrew Marvell is asking the lady to have sex with him, however, more than a love poem, I would say, “To His Coy Mistress” is a meditation on time and death. Marvell dramatizes the questions: What are the implications of physicality and mortality? In using time most wisely, should one focus on this life or the afterlife? Marvell avoids a simple, conventional answer, and the poem works well as an argument for either view.
Thank you so much sir 👍👍
I love the stanza. Watching him looking so mentally and physically hot fuel me up!!! Any of Allen Poe poems in the future?
Thank you. very useful
Love this lecture, it was very helpful,by the way are you working on another poem of Andrew Marvell's The Garden?
This is a wonderful poem. ''Annihilating all that's made / To a green thought in a green shade'' . Marvell was a true artist !
Alex Blackwell, if you asked your question with a particular expectation of a significance in your mind about the rubies and if that is the same as what you have now put in my mind, thank you and it is a bit comical.
The last lines can mean that we can't make sun stop as we like but we can make the sun run as we like, i.e. spend the time as we like but not try to stop the time
This guy knows his stuff
Awwwwww, thanks!
right, he is great!!
!
Great! I like it. (from India, but not by the Ganges).
As a girl, my impression to this poem is that this man isn't deeply in love with this woman, because I don't think if you love a woman wholeheartedly, you would write something like the second stanza as to seduce her, because it would be total failure for her to enjoy the pleasure obtained from sex. I think the whole poem is to suggest that sex is something that couldn't be waited.
I like the speed of this poem which turns from slow to fast and finally slowing down again. It makes me feel like he is doing a sarcasm in the first stanza because he doesn't agree to most poets on the idea that 'love is ever glow' or 'I love every edge of you no matter how time flies'. He is showing his urgency of having sex with his girl. He wants it violently and desperately like wanting to eat her alive immediately. So the speed here goes quick. Another interpretation to the speed of this poem is that, I think the writer is hinting the process of having sex. At first, we have to slowly seduce and flatter your partner as to create the atmosphere. Then everything will get more hyper and active and at last when it's done, they will be lying down resting together on bed. The speed of it is also going from slow to fast to slow.
If Andrew Marvell really writes this poem only for flirting a girl to have sex with him, then it is properly the most cheesy romantic poetry I've ever heard and I don't even know how to appreciate this poetry.
However, I know how the carpe diem poetry goes on and this poetry is really a typical example of it.
I'm not sure whether Marvell intended to write it like a satire because as I remember that metaphysical poets always love to make fun of some serious stuff in their period of time. If it's meant to surprise or shock people, I think Marvell did it in a humorous way to express his understanding of love and time. It's just like what we always say in our generation:YOLO(You Only Live Once). It's not hard to understand right now but in 500 years ago? I think it's a bold idea.
It's so funny.
P.S. I don't know why I cannot post public comment on this vid only so i just post it here for reference lol.
thanks soooo much, this will help alot!
If the speaker is to seduce a girl through this poem, the sarcasm really goes too far beyond to impress a girl and to make her sleep with him. This is obviously not a poem about the speaker and his affection to certain woman. I think I will agree it is a satire to people who write seducing poems just by reading the first two stanzas. The image of “worms crawling in and out of vagina” is surely sarcastic enough to sneer at those who write such kind of poem. But it also fits with the interpretation that people should live in the moment and have fun. Also, in the last stanza, especially the final couplets, sounds very positive to me and hard to read it as sarcasm to the style of love poems at that time.
This is really great sir...but it would be even better if you had a white board to make us understand better.
I pictured William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet when I was reading this poem. I pictured Andrew Marvell and his mistress as in the balcony scene, where Marvell (Romeo) was reciting this poem to his mistress (Juliet). But the only difference between the two would be one was about love and the other one would be about wanting to have sex, which was comical in a way. The three stanza of the poem could be divided into three cconcepts. The first stanza would be a love poem from Marvell to his mistress. The second stanza would be Marvell's statement listing out the problems of not having sex with her right now. And the final stanza being the idea of having sex/cape diem. The three concepts somehow fit together that proved his arguements and desire to have sex, which I find that it was logical and funny at the same time. But what is funny is that the first stanza of the poem was something Shakespeare was trying to tell his fellow poets not to do like using false similes and unreal ideas in "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun".
And by taking the sex part out of the poem's context in the second and the third stanza, I like the idea of time passing quickly than we could imagine, and the idea of seizing the day and live life to the fullest. I like the first 4 lines in the second stanza which showed the feelings of time passing and the emptiness of future that we could not escape. I also like the idea of hope and optimism in the third stanza - time eats us and we have to eat them back, and the sun is chasing us but we can make it harder for time to catch us that quickly.
I don't believe Don Ulin's idea that this poem was a parody that he was writing to her and warning her against the dangers of such seduction. It is because there are no lines in the poem to suggest that idea. If we are to belive that view, why do Marvell ask both of them to enjoy sex while they still can?
I also want to know more about the stressing of different lines in the poems that could give different meanings. How do you write about their difference? Do you simply just write their stresses or what?
If I understand Don Ulin's facinating point correctly, then the whole poem would have to be seen as a satire on the type of poets who would write this type of poem to seduce their lovers, much in the same way Nothing Like the Sun or Sonnet 130, is seen as a satire on bad poets who write the "My mistress eyes ARE like the sun/ Her lips ARE red as coral" etc . . . type of poem. As to your second question about "the stressing of different lines in the poems that could give different meanings" unless you wanted to show specifically how many different meanings can be attainted by stressing different words (not lines) a few examples should be enough to make your point.
Sir, pls make more lectures
great!
Hi please make more videos, they're superbly. 2019 .😐
I have told many a coy lady that she makes my 'vegetable love grow', to great effect. FYI as needed, add 'like an eggplant' and wiggle one's eyebrows.
You'd have to hope she was well-read. I mean, that would look REALLY weird if she didn't know the poem, as opposed to indulging in a brilliantly witty reinterpretation of a classical romantic trope that showed you and she were on the same intellectual and cultural level, if she did know it. And knew it very well. And interpreted it the same way you did. Of course, then you might be out of luck when you find out she didn't know what an eggplant looked like. Ah, the perils of courting rituals!
Do somebody knows where he from ???
What are Elements of Literature, Point of View, Symbolism and Imagery, and Tone and Mood ?
Sir can you explain the poem Tiger and the lamb of William Blake
Thank you, thank you, thank you 😊
hi, thank you soo much for the lecture,
can you please do a video on the analysis of I am by john Clare please. thank you
would you explain about the poem Love after Love by Derek Walcott???
thanks a lot sir
If Andrew Marvell really writes this poem only for flirting a girl to have sex with him, then it is properly the most inappropriate romantic poetry I've ever heard and I don't even know how to appreciate this poetry.
However, I know how the carpe diem poetry goes on and this poetry is really a typical example of it.
I'm not sure whether Marvell intended to write it like a satire because as I remember that metaphysical poets always love to make fun of some serious stuff in their period of time. If it's meant to surprise or shock people, I think Marvell did it in a humorous way to express his understanding of love and time. It's just like what we always say in our generation:YOLO(You Only Live Once). It's not hard to understand right now but in 500 years ago? I think it's a bold idea.
It's so funny.
Micah Cheng As a girl, I think the flirtation is effective enough to get one in bed. But I agree with you that Marvell is probably the man to sleep with but not to be in love with. YOLO.
My God, I miss college.
Me 2!!!
the iron gates of life for me seem like the obstacles that prevent the lady of having sex
Mistress? BDSM? really? Mistress is a term to mean an unmarried woman. I would say the poem is one between equals, a man who is clever enough to offer the poem (or plea) and a woman who has already avoided seduction over a courtship, and who can read its multiple meanings in the poem. He is persuading her, and hinting as the sexual physical pleasures as way to further tempt her. Thus we can read her as intelligent and string willed, but also a sexual woman (quite progressive idea of women for 17th C).
I see it as the Mistress is not a silly girl (weird idea) but a young lady (LONG preserved virginity - long courtship at the least) from a good family who understands premarital sex is forbidden, but equally is open to be persuaded. Marvel actually uses romantic ideas of the physical love making, being no longer possible after death.
Vegetable love is clearly phallic ... the poem is a string of double entendre, its about sex.... a wooer thinly veils sexual references as he is tempting her into bed. Its a tongue in cheek poem, that disguises the obvious message (let us lay together) in a language which appears to be polite but conveys sexual temptation.
"My vegetable love should grow..." could this mean his manhood personified as a vegetable...zuchinni, cucumber, or any other phallic vegetable?
XD XD XD XD
Thanks mahns 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Why does Dr. Barker keep choosing poems which were so important in my youth? Wait, did he just say Marvell was trying to get laid? There go my ideals...
Text and Experience 2020.
Chong Hoi Kwo 4084248
Time is a substantial theme in the poem as to everyone, the poet is no exception. The poet has a crave for a lady who he wants to spend his life with and his thirst for the woman has only been growing as he realises there is not much time to waste, as shown by the contrasting ownership of time in the first and second stanzas, with the former being the ideal imagination of the poet and the lady having “world enough and time” (line 1) while the latter being the “impartial cruelty of time passing” - “But at my back I always hear / Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near” (lines 1-2). The poet’s conscience of the transience of life is yet not only to the poet, but also to the mistress as in stanza 2, the mistress can only hear the “echoing song” (line 27) that the poet sings to her in her grave “thy marble vault” (line 26). Like life, beauty does not last forever, “Thy beauty shall no more be found”. We therefore see that the poet wishes the mistress will also realise life, as well as time, is fleeting and will therefore conquer her coyness and love him back. The poem then continues with the poet envisaging the two of them making the most out of the reality in the third stanza. Rather than being “chapped” (line 40) by time, they should “devour” (line 39) time, by “roll[ing]” (line 41) through the “iron gates of life” (line 44) - metaphorical obstructions that hold people back which in this case may refer to the shyness of the lady - with energy and sweetness, so that they can pursue the ‘ultimate pleasure’ or live fully in life without regret. The final two lines in the poem are a powerful and precise conclusion of why they should break through the “iron gates” and what the poet means by living fully in life: despite the ageing in future, their inner youth is always buoyant and flamboyant.
If the poem is a proposal poem to a girl, we can see that time is what urges, if not initiates, the poet to seal the deal with someone he loves. There is this hackneyed old saying, one only realises the importance of someone when they are gone. Likewise, knowing that he is competing with time which is yet invincible, the poet takes no hesitation and venture to court, which denotes the crux of the poem, one should be honest about their inner voice and bravely venture it, despite the craziness and absurdity. The bold pursuit or the ‘just do it’ spirit is the spirit of life. There is no guarantee when you try, but it is a definite no if you never try. Without adventure, life is just boring, and one may give up the unexpected yet seasoning possibilities of life. Accelerated by the fact that life is short, one should seize the day and act out, like the band The Damned which roared at the old age and redefined ‘youthfulness’ and reached the peak of their life. The proactiveness towards life, as opposed to going gentle into that good night, is demonstrated by the poet’s courtship to the lady. With this being the overall message, this poem may well become another ‘truthful old saying’. It is not a love poem specifically for “his coy mistress” because it can be universal, as in the case of The Damned for example, whose “iron age” may be ageing or being old-fashioned. The mentioning of the lady is to connote the sense of time - his appreciation of the physical beauty of the lady is based on time, “An hundred years” (line 13) for the eyes, “Two hundred years” (line 15) for the breast, “thirty thousand to the rest” (line 16), and at least “an age to every part” (line 17); the beauty of the lady is limited by time (line 25), as well as her virginity. Hence, if one argues it is a love poem, they should pay as much attention to ‘time’ as well. It may be true that the poet does fancy the lady, but can it also be possible that his urgency and desire for the lady is due to the ephemerality of time (and life)? With the universal and shared experience, this poem resonates with readers and remains a lasting ‘truthful old story’.
Lam Wai Sum, Phronesis (4074243)
“It is the way the over-all message of the poem can resonate in our own lives that gives To His Coy Mistress its lasting power, not the direct address to the girl in it. What is that overall message?”
Combining the elements of love, passion, sex and time, it was not something new in poems even back in the 16th and 17th centuries, but rather something classical to see in genres. Before Andrew Marvell’s To His Coy Mistress, Robert Herrick has once addressed a similar idea of carpe diem in To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time, ‘Gather ye rosebuds while ye may/ Old Time is still a-flying’ in attempt to urge people to seize their days to love. To His Coy Mistress very much shared the same message. In my first read-through of the poem, without any knowledge to the historical background of the poet and the poem, I tend to believe that it is just typical love poem suggesting people to make the best of life by living it to the full and not to wait until death. However, what made it differentiate from the others would be how Marvell actually used the seduction of the girl as a metaphor to satire the fleeting of time on earth with the adoption of a three-part argument, and the complexion of the paradox between his own belief and the message that he wanted to convey. The idea of wooing, of seducing the ‘mistress’ is not obscure, instead, I would say it is blatant by the use of ‘If, but, therefore’ structure in the three parts. As pointed out in the lecture, it is a convincing way to sway someone, and for this poem, Marvell first provided an ‘If’ condition of consummate love, which he referred as his ‘vegetable love’ to the mistress-IF, if they had enough time. He used some sort of hyperbole in the first part, for instances ‘ten years before the Flood’, ‘the conversion of the Jews’ or the many years the poet tends to use to appreciate mistress’s body, yet this is crucial for the readers to acknowledge that these depictions were not realistic and impossible to be true, therefore an IF was used. Time was then strongly addressed as the enemy of the lovers in the second part to demonstrate the ‘impossibility’-BUT. As ‘time’s winged chariot’ was chasing behind them and when it comes, the lust of the poet would turn into ashes that he would no longer show affiliation to her while worms would be the ones that devour her ‘long-preserved virginity’. These horrifying and kind of threatening statement were to overturn the IF condition he provided before and were also the ‘reality’ the poet perceived. With all the long-winded logical thinking in advance, Marvell consequently yearns directly for the need of the mistress to not be coy anymore and sleep with him. He managed to say that ‘Look, now while we still are youthful with instant desires inside, why don’t we just grasp any seconds to do it immediately here, to do it as vigorously as you really wanted and union as “one ball”? There’s no time much left in our lives, seize the day to be in love with me and follow your heart!’. The light-hearted mood and considered-to-be a certain level of rudeness towards the woman with the combination of death imagery support the notion that it was not just traditional love poetry.
Interestingly, it is crucial to be mention that there is a paradox between the overall message that Marvell wanted to convey through the poem and his own belief. Given that he was born as Puritan, which they had a strict thought on sexual behaviour that having sex should be restricted within marriage, all non-martial or non-reproductive sexual activities were forbidden-which was criticized as the denial of pleasure, apparently, Marvell was persuading readers to seize the day and to engage in love or sex. It was a contradiction to his social and religious situation in real life and if this poem were to barely play as a seduction to the mistress, it would be a tragedy for Andrew Marvell’s rest of the life as living in a conservative society. Therefore, I very much agree what the lecture had mentioned, it might not necessarily be as flippant as it sounds like, Marvell was just trying to allude to love and sex fond by the audience to bring out the notion of carpe diem in an arguable way.
It is the way the over-all message of the poem can resonate in our own lives that gives To His Coy Mistress its lasting power, not the direct address to the girl in it. What is that overall message?
From first glance, this is a love poem, much like John Donne’s “Good Morrow” or Shakepeare’s love sonnets. As the video has explained, this is dedicated to the poet’s coy lover. He named her his mistress, perhaps both as a lover and also as someone who had sexual dominance over him (As the poem later points out, she literally decides if he can have her body.) The poem then lists the poet’s argument for having sex with him in three stanzas. The first stanza is very similar to other love poems, whereby the poet wildly exaggerates his love for the girl. His love lasts as long as time itself and as strong as the greatest empires, he also mentioned how her beauty deserves the praising of infinite lifetimes etc. It is possible that the poet here is adopting a similar stance towards the genre of “love poems” as Shakespeare did in Sonnet 130 “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun”. Up to this point, both of them are overusing love poem tropes as satires against the idea of employing exaggerative descriptions in love poems, much like how the Watchmen and The Boys are satirical series against the superhero genre. The second stanza takes a sterner tone as the poet talks about the cons of not sleeping with him. He throws in the dark images of her impending loss of youth and eventual death. He also had the audacity to claim how her virginity will go to waste as she rots in her grave. Her beauty, honor, his lust shall all go to dust. Obviously, it is highly dubious that this approach of argument will win any girl’s favor. This, along with the tone this poem can be read with (E.g. The grave’s a fine and private place, But none, I think, do there embrace.) then further provides evidence of this poem’s purpose as a satire: To tell its intended reader that such exaggerated compliments not only does not truly reveal one’s love and passion, they are also dangerous should the girl fall too deep into its “candy-coated lies”. Hence the aggressive tone in the second stanza, where one might assume the poem to be chiding her out of desperation rather than persuading her.
Then one comes to the final stanza, where the poet makes his closing argument. Here the poet notes his mistress’ sexual interest and persuades her to seize this moment, while she is young, to enjoy sex with him. The poem has reached its climax, it is possible that the poet intended this last part to be recited with a kind of fervor or passion. Even though they will continue to age, they will not let age catch up to them that easily. They cannot stop time nor the Sun, but they will sure as hell make the Sun run after them by indulging in sexual pleasures. While it is easy to think that this “seizing the moment” mentality is simply used to persuade his mistress to sleep with him, it might actually go deeper than that. Perhaps he is referring to her coyness to love him back, her fear to open up and have sex. Thus, I believe the poem’s overall message/intention is not to warn its readers of the dangers of being seduced by beautiful/overly exaggerating compliments, but to tell its readers to “just do it” if he/she wants to. There is only you yourself that is holding you back. Much like what the video suggests, this last stanza can be applied to anything, from sex to bungee jumping. But most importantly, I believe it is about love. One should not be afraid to love someone or be loved. Love is difficult, because it means devoting your feelings into another, sharing your most intimate fears, compromising; it also means that there is a possibility of you getting hurt. But when one still has that health and youth, one should try doing it; open up and risk everything for love. Perhaps ultimately, the poet suggests that maybe he will be the man she be worth melting for (and having sex with, of course). This is why I too believe this is a parody, not a satire. While satire seeks to persuade its audience of the ridiculousness of something (In this case, love poems and its tropes) and attacks the genre and its values as a whole, parody affirms the literary form that it’s inhabiting and its values but twist it to expose flaws. Marvell exposes the problem of appealing to a girl with overly exaggerated compliments and talking about death and her aging process etc. He then establishes the poem’s true message: that one should just love/make love with a raging heart while one still can (and he is here for the girl, the man to love her back). This is why the poem is so powerful, not in its ways of sexual persuasion, but of its message to seize the moment to do anything you have ever dreamed while you still can, especially opening up to the possibility of romance.
Wong Hin Lam Chloe (4114914)
It is the way the over-all message of the poem can resonate in our own lives that gives To His Coy Mistress its lasting power, not the direct address to the girl in it. What is that overall message?
The overall message of the poem is “Time never waits, do not let time dictates your life.” The argument of the speaker first begins with a confession to his coy mistress that, if world and time were limitless, which would never happen for human of course, being together and having sex with each other need not to be rush. The mistress could still reject him for many times and they can spend time in different places individually. Since they have got limitless time, the speaker can have “vegetable love” that grows slowly but strongly on his coy mistress, and he can spend plenty of time to praise her body parts. In fact, the idea of the speaker presented in stanza one is quite meaningless because there is no actual limitless time in human’s life. Therefore, in the second part of the poem, he turns back to reality and uses his words to hit the mistress with the fact that one day she is going to get old, her beauty will no longer exist, died and buried in the grave, only the worms will experience what he presently longs for: so please be reality checked. Protecting the virginity in her youth is not worthy, he is trying to convince the coy mistress to stop being coy, she needs to express her love to him instantly while they still have time. In the final part of the poem, the speaker becomes more aggressive, he uses words such as “sports”, “roll” and “tear” to sum up his argument and make it sounds more passionate and powerful.
I think the kind of people that can resonate their own lives with this poem are those who promote chastity. In Marvell’s times, I suspect that many females are like what he describes as “coy”, he wants these people to be more realistic after reading his poem. Although people nowadays seem to be less concerned about their virginity but I believe that there are people still being “coy” or simply not trying to live their best lives, the poem has its lasting power because his target audience exist in every generation. The coy mistress here can be anyone that never having had sex before. The speaker tries to convince this group of people to treasure their time while they still can and enjoy every moment in their lives. The poem conveys a message that life is short, and time is limited, therefore people should express their love to their lovers boldly so that they can seize every moment being together without regret.
Caila Espiritu (4141694)
The overall message in “To His Coy Mistress” is to do the thing you want to do regardless of how nerve-wracking it is because time will not wait for anyone. At first read, this is not obvious; the poem shows a three-part story in which Marvell romantically--but more so sexually--pursues a supposedly shy woman. To convince her, he uses time to his advantage. In the first stanza, he mentions the things they could do if they had all the time in the world. For example, “We would sit down, and think which way / To walk, and pass our long love’s day” and “hundred years should go to praise / Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze; / Two hundred to adore each breast, / But thirty thousand to the rest”. Marvell lists out the most romantic actions that could be done if, one, she falls for him; and two, if time could go on forever. If we apply this idea to life in general, it shows an idealistic, romanticized view of the world. If time never ran out, one would do everything they have always wanted to, while taking their time to do so.
However, the second stanza serves as a pessimistic reality check, as suggested by the conjunction, “But”. Marvell uses a “wingèd chariot hurrying near” as a metaphor for time and how it will arrive in a fast and violent manner, instead of slowly and peacefully. Essentially, time can be cruel and will come for anyone whether they like it or not. Moreover, the words “worms”, “dust”, and “ashes” can be connected to death, further serving as examples for the life’s grim reality. Nevertheless, Marvell does not dwell on this too much. Instead, he uses it as a reason to make the mistress sleep with him, because if she refuses, she will die with regret that will follow her even in the comforts of her “marble vault”. On top of all that, the lines “The grave’s a fine and private place, / But none, I think, do there embrace.” can be interpreted in many ways, though I personally see it as a sarcastic line. It is almost as if Marvell is saying that death can be peaceful, but there is no excitement unless she sleeps with him, like he is performing reverse-psychology on her to get her, and in real life’s case, the readers of the poem. Finally, the last stanza is a more realistic take on time. He says “though we cannot make our sun / Stand still, yet we will make him run”, which is a reminder that although time is beyond our control, we as humans still have the ability to decide what we do in our lives and how we choose to live. Ultimately, the deeper overall message of “To His Coy Mistress” remains relevant to this day, especially when more people prioritize work/school to the point that they forget to take time off and enjoy the remaining years they have on Earth. We may be coy towards life-hesitant to do things beyond our routines, and Marvell tells us to seize the day because time is ruthless, and it is better to die regretting the things we have done instead of the things we never got to do.
Can anyone help me to find the metaphor 💔
please do The Canonization by John Donne
This poem is somewhat ambiguous for me. Even if the flow of the poem itself looks like seducing a young lady who's sexually conservative or pretends to be conservative, it is just too much and doesn't make any sense for me. I wonder who on earth will be so sarcastic to seduce a lover, especially the second stanza is the worst when he says "then worms shall try that long-preserved virginity and your quaint honour turn to dust". It sounds almost insulting. If we take a look of the first sentences of each stanza, the logic of the poem is IF we had enough world and time, you being sexually conservative doesn't matter because we have enough world and time to spend for spiritual love without sex BUT the reality is not like that. Life is too short and time goes quickly. THEREFORE, let's enjoy everything that we're supposed to do (definitely having sex with me)'. This logic of him asking love for a lover is too blatant and focused on 'physical' love which does not seem to be attractive or sincere at all. Because it is too blatant and explicit, it raises doubts in my mind that it isn't really a love poem. After searching about Andrew Marvell, I found out that he was a puritan, a group of religious people who had strict principles and disapproved of physical pleasure. The combination of fact that the poet was Puritan and the too much blatant and even sarcastic poem kinda worked for me that the poem itself is full of paradox or sarcasm which implies that warning against seduction or physical pleasure.
Thanx
I believe he used complain to mean plead .
complain as in a complaint, a love poem
Lifewriting 2020.
Lifewriting Demi Kong
Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analyzing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking To His Coy Mistress as a case in point, this poem can be argued strongly that it is a piece of Lifewriting that the poet expresses his desperation towards his mistress, although many may assume it to be satirical writing because of its overt connotation of sexual libertinism. The poet sets up a syllogism to persuade his mistress to accept him. Simplifying Marvell’s syllogism, it should go as “if we have enough time, we can delay; but we do not have enough time; therefore we cannot delay.” This syllogism may seem valid, but in fact it falls into the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I cannot tell if Marvell deliberately wrongs the syllogism. It is indeed a romantic persuasion. And from the perspective of a desperate suitor, this is also a possible reaction that he is deeply affected by his mistress. He may be thinking about her all day, as he suggests in the poem, if he has gotten enough time, he can flatter her for the longest time. And that makes him can no longer keep himself sane.
Besides, although the syllogism is not logical, the emotions Marvell gives in the poem presents a very powerful persuasion. He manipulates the use of pronouns in a very clever way to show his feelings. While he wants to express the distant and cold relationship he feels with his mistress, he uses the form you/your, instead of thou/thee/thy, from the second-person singular pronoun. The former form indicates formality and the latter, intimacy. So, when Marvell says “And you should, if you please, refuse / Till the conversion of the Jews” and “For, lady, you deserve this states, / Nor would I love at lower rate,” it reveals how nonintimate and cold he and his mistress are. Also, the concluding stanza further exposes the desperation that the poet gets by emphasizing the animal properties that human possesses. The phrases “sport”, “birds of prey”, “tear” and “run” all are referencing animals. Because at this stage, all he wants is to have a sexual relationship with the girl and lure her in. Overall, the poet at first may still show the admiration and affection for his mistress, but then it is all debased by lust and desperation.
Aison Clark Laborte, ENG-3385
Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analyzing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking To His Coy Mistress as a case in point the poem is more of a satirical warning. The first two stanzas were meant to be seducing and probably an attempt to sound romantic. It felt like the poet was slowly building up to something. But by the third stanza, he just straight up asked the girl to have sex with him with some aggressive remarks. Assuming that the first two stanzas were romantically seducing, the last stanza quickly escalated any potential growing passionate sensation.
Though, with some hyperbole that was used by the poet in the first two stanzas, it can be seen that they do not really mean to sound romantic after all. Instead of sounding encouraging or complimenting, it sounded more as a threat and harassment. It sounded like harassment with the hyperbolic line “Two hundred to adore each breast”. He sounded like he only wanted to have a sexual connection with her rather than a spiritual love connection. His lust has become more evident with his line that comments on her appearance “Thy beauty shall no more be found”. It implies that she would be disposed and not be wanted once her beauty has gone because of old age. The poet then threatened her virginity with time and death, mentioning that worms would get her virginity. He was trying to say it would be better to lose her virginity to him rather than to die a virgin. This does not sound romantic at all.
It can be argued that it may be unfair to judge the insincerity being brought by exaggeration because sometimes, as a writer, it is quite difficult to describe a certain feeling with words. Even the threat about her virginity can be argued that the feeling of wanting to connect with the woman is genuine because it is possible that some women are attracted to hearing something dangerous and threatening. This is also certainly a similar case to some men.
But, perhaps, from a literature perspective, this poem is a satire to love poems due to its outrageous sexual comment and insult for the woman’s virginity which has always been regarded as being honorable to keep it. This is more evident when this poem was written during the period that casual sex is discouraged. The fact that the poet was a politician may even suggest his conservative view on sex to the public.
Lifewriting Chan Ki Tung, Tony
Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analyzing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking To His Coy Mistress as a case in point, the hyperbole and satire in the poem indeed make the readers doubtful of Andrew Marvel’s true intentions. However, I suggest that one could look at how the metaphysical poets, Marvel included, in ascertaining his romantic feelings to the woman he addresses in the poem. According to Dr. Johnson, the metaphysical poets, though “whose ideas are yoked by violence together”, “were men of learning, and, to show their learning was their whole endeavor”. Not unlike John Donne’s the Flea, which makes use of logic or rationality in getting women, Marvel uses syllogism in order to get laid. He makes his premises explicitly in the first two stanzas and his conclusion in the final stanza:
“Had we but world enough and time” (if we had infinite time)
But at my back I always hear Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near (but we had finite time)
___________________________ ___________________________
___________________________
Now therefore, while the youthful hue (therefore, you should…)
In other words, what he is trying to put across is that: we do not have enough time so “you” should not pretend to be coy anymore and let have sex with me. However, logic alone won’t do. Marvel also employs rhetoric device, making his argument much more convincing. As Philip Larkin said,
“What still compels attention to Marvell’s work is the ease with which he manages the fundamental paradox of verse - the conflict of natural word usage with metre and rhyme - and marries it either to hallucinatory images within his own unique conventions or to sudden sincerities that are as convincing in our age as in his".
This is especially so in the last stanza where Marvel told the woman to roll “up into one ball” and strike “through the iron gate of life”. Therefore, To His Coy Mistress is a mixture of logic and rhetoric that aims to convince the woman addressed.
However, critics may deny the analysis just made because Andrew Marvel, as indicated by biographical facts, is a rather reserved person, who barely involved in a romantic relationships. This might mean that the woman he addresses in To His Coy Mistress is pure imagination. However, I am inclined to believe that the poem, ventriloquized by Marvel through a persona, is an attempt to satirize people of his contemporaries, probably John Donne, who was excel at getting laid with his logic farce. This could be evidenced by the title per se “To His Coy Mistress”. Marvel called the poem “To His Coy Mistress” instead of “To My Coy Mistress”. This could mean that he attempts to distance himself from the poem through a persona. And as I have mentioned above, the “His” might suggest John Donne or people of similar, who used his learnings to seduce women. Also, some of the sentences made by this persona is comically absurd. For a given piece of satirical work to be legitimate, it, in the first place, has to be too absurd to be true. For instance, you could not possibly believe that Jonathan Swift indeed proposed cannibalizing young children or that Chip Tsao really meant it when he called the Philippine “nation of servants”. In my opinion, To His Coy Mistress works as a Horatian satire, which uses witty and comical lines to laugh at his contemporaries. This is exemplified by his persona praising the woman’s body parts for a time far exceeding the life expectancy of a normal human being. These satires all point to the fact that a group of learned men, who makes use of their rationality, persuade women by telling them carpe diem. But this, in Marvel’s eyes, is laughable, if not absurd.
Lifewriting Dickson
Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analysing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking To His Coy Mistress as a case in point, the poem could be interpreted in different ways to different readers. But for me, this poem was more like a genuine love expression rather than a parody or satirical writing.
One of the possible argument could be argued from the line “An age at least to every part, and the last age should show your heart.” Starting from the lady’s eyes, Marvell’s sequence of praising different parts of the girl seems to be determined based on his extent of adoration, as the time he wished to spent with them prolonged one by one. The sentence “and the last age should show your heart” seems to suggest that the girl’s heart was the ultimate thing that Marvell was longed for and adore, that he would choose to save it till the last and spend ages to stay with it. If this poem was simply a satirical writing which mocks at the excessive type of romantic approach, this heart-seeking intention seems redundant and unsuitable.
Apart from that, if the poem was a satirical writing, the poem did not seems obvious enough (for me) in letting the audience spot out the sarcasm in it. If the poem was intended to be written as a warning or satire of a particular type of poet or poem, the sarcasm in the poem was supposed to be more obvious or comprehendible so that the intention of the poet could be well perceived by the audience. Although it would not be totally impossible to eliminate the possibility that Marvell wrote this poem as a parody, this poem seems to be more suitable in being comprehended as a direct love poem, due to its beautiful last stanza that highlight the importance of “life is short, why don’t we seize the present moment and make love”.
ENG3385 Lifewriting Liu Xu Fen Hugo (4024626)
Though many poets often write to convey heartfelt personal emotions and experiences, analyzing poetry as Lifewriting is problematic because we simply cannot be sure when this is the case and when it is not, and where the situation is not obvious must derive any conclusions concerning the poet’s intention from a combination of instinct and sympathy. Taking ‘To His Coy Mistress’ as a case in point, while some readers may consider this piece as a satirical take on a blunt approach on romance that somewhat invokes aggressive imagery, others would view this as truthful lifewriting. It is understandable to view this poem in the former way, because of how over the top certain lines are, and these words are perhaps too excessive for some to be off-putting, definitely not a sensible way for one’s romantic endeavors. To reinforce this idea, when reading the poem in a certain tone it would seem that Marvell is speaking sarcastically, as demonstrated in the lecture. Therefore, it is not difficult to treat this poem as poking fun of the described seduction techniques.
However, I do think this poem is genuinely a piece of lifewriting by Marvell, instead of just mocking people with such approach to romantic relationships. First of all, regarding of readers’ tonal interpretation of the piece, it can also be read completely seriously without any kind of satire, which is displayed in the lecture as well. But most importantly, I would point to Marvell’s history to argue for the poem’s sincerity. ‘To His Coy Mistress’ is widely believed to be written in the early 1650s, the same time Marvell served as a tutor for the daughter of a political elite and military strongman Thomas Fairfax. While he taught the daughter of one of the most powerful man in England then, developing romantic relations with her could hardly lead to a happy ending, especially as his life is pretty much on the line with this. Furthermore, England then was undergoing a troubling time, with the ending of the long Civil War and the ascension of Oliver Cromwell. The politically unstable situation would surely discouraged Marvell to get together with a woman so close to the elite circle.
The major point of this poem is to seize the opportunity when it presents itself, when time rarely allow second chances. Under the circumstances as mentioned above, one can deduce that he decided to give up on pursuing Fairfax’s daughter. Rather than seeing this poem as satire, it can be seen as expressing regret. His regret being not seizing the valuable chance to further build a romantic relationship with the woman, hence his emphasis throughout the poem telling readers not to do so. This is Marvell reflecting on his mistake made in his lifetime.
💜💜💜
Vegetable love?
In this context it would mean "not particularly sexy," as opposite to my passionate, more ferocious, more exciting, "animal" love.
@@mycroftlectures Thanks a bunch.Sir I've heard that vegetable love connotes male sexual organ since it looks like many a vegetable item.Do you think it's sensible?
Yeah, but she knows who's left holding the baby. Girls have heard all this before, so she replies: "If all the world and love were young...In folly ripe, but reason rotten...had joys no date and age not need...." Our girl has heard other poets besides him. :-)
You're not wrong. Raleigh certainly a good one to counterbalance his argument.
Stay alive Dr. If tells a story that is not true now.
There is no difference between smacking your mouth while eating and smacking your mouth while talking.
Reading mistake
Please show the lines not yourself.